[guest post by Dana]

Here we go. I haven’t posted about this subject for obvious reasons. The main one being that the Jussie Smollett case is still being investigated and we don’t know for sure what happened. So while I’ve stayed on the sidelines keeping my mouth shut and not jumping to conclusions, the leading Democratic candidates didn’t realize that they too should show some restraint and patience and wait for an investigation before spouting off. Obviously the reason we wait is because investigations into high-voltage incidents like the alleged Smollett attack can reveal that what the situation appeared to be, was in fact something very different. No caution for this group though. Heck no. They happily jumped into the sordid mess with both feet in an effort to advance themselves like the grifters they are. As they self-righteously beat their chests in angry indignation at the horrible stench of assumed racist hate wafting through the air, they made their assumptions based on seemingly little more than an initial report of the incident. Certainly they reacted before there was even an opportunity for an investigation to take place. (Date of alleged incident: Jan. 29. Date of the three candidates’ tweets: Jan. 29.) But sadly, the assumptions they made were necessary if they were going to out-woke the competition. And yet, while grifters are gonna grift, when a candidate for the highest office in the land, who spent six years as “California’s top cop,” still cannot resist the urge to make hasty, premature accusations about an alleged hate crime, as well as effectively announcing that she *knew* what happened – even before any investigation – then the seriousness of that individual who hopes to become the next Commander in Chief should be in question. I’m looking at you, Kamala Harris. It’s almost as if investigations, facts, and evidence are pesky mundane issues to be swatted away because girl wants to become the president, and pushing one’s cause, no matter how premature or inaccurate, is the path to a needed win. As caution and prudence go out the window, a foolish mentality of “strike while the iron is hot or forever lose that woke opportunity” becomes the guiding light for the self-proclaimed “top cop”. Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t we expect more of a presidential candidate who has been a state’s chief law enforcement officer and top lawyer for six years in one of the nation’s most populous states?

Anyway, the police want to interview Smollett again after two brothers who were interviewed by investigators claimed that they were paid [by Smollett] to take part in a staged attack.

P.S. No response from Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand on the changing tide of the story. Cory Booker, while not acknowledging his earlier rush to judgment, said today that he is now going to withhold from commenting further “until all the information actually comes out from on the record sources.”

Gosh, what a novel idea.

UPDATE: This is Kamala Harris responding to a reporter’s inquiry today about whether she had been too quick to condemn the “attack” before knowing all the facts:

Kamala Harris looks deeply uncomfortable and/or deeply confused about having to explain her Jussie Smollett “modern-day lynching” tweet. pic.twitter.com/Z2EMvm2HZB

— Vince Coglianese (@TheDCVince) February 18, 2019

“I think that once the investigation is concluded, then we should all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of that investigation.”

Uh, too late. You already did. Remember??? Unfortunately, the reporter did not hold her feet to the fire and point out that, of all people, the former San Francisco District Attorney and Attorney General should have known to use a prudent restraint before claiming that a “modern day lynching” had taken place prior to any investigation having been completed.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Return to the post here.

Simpsons fans will recognize the reference:

The beatdown to which I refer here was administered by one Jack Dunphy, once a contributor to this blog, in an absolutely brutal takedown of some lazy woke “reporting” by Los Angeles’s Dog Trainer of Record:

Gentle readers, today I present the latest, incandescently glaring example, brought to you by that seemingly endless font of such rubbish, the Los Angeles Times. The story, by staff writer Jeong Park, appears on page B-4 of the paper’s Sunday print edition, but was posted Friday evening under the provocative headline, “They say sheriff’s helicopters buzz lowest over Black homes, and they’re out to prove it.”

“Aha,” the reader is expected to say, “those dirty, racist cops are even harassing black people from the sky!”

Park begins the story thus: “Law enforcement helicopters routinely buzz around Greater Los Angeles. But in certain neighborhoods, they swoop in — low and loud. So say two community groups that are studying the effects of helicopters on the health of county residents.”

I’m tempted to quote the whole thing, it’s so good . . . but I want to send you over so you can read it for yourself. I was expecting a fairly standard “helicopters fly where the crime is” sort of analysis, supported by some statistics that the paper had conveniently omitted. There’s some of that, but this is oh so much more. First, Dunphy addresses this paragraph from the story:

Shapiro said the groups had found that in every census block of L.A. County that is more than 40% Black, the median elevation of helicopters was below 1,000 feet, the “minimum safe altitude” for congested areas as set by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Well! If the FAA says 1,000 feet is the minimum safe altitude, and the cops are routinely flying below that, ipso facto we have a problem, don’t we? Except, as Columbo used to say: there’s just one more thing. Here’s Dunphy:

The online version of the story links to the FAA’s Guide to Low-Flying Aircraft, which indeed says that aircraft operating over a “congested area” maintain “an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.”

Alas for Times writer Park and the Oxford and Bard College-educated Shapiro, they failed to thoroughly read the very document they present as proof that police helicopters are operating in a racist manner over Los Angeles. If they had, they would know the 1,000-foot minimum altitude rule applies to fixed-wing aircraft. Had they bothered to read a mere two paragraphs beyond the point where the 1,000-foot rule is mentioned, they would have learned that helicopters are explicitly exempted from this rule, and that helicopter pilots are directed to “comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed by the [FAA] Administrator.”

Go ahead and read the document yourself. He’s right.

But it gets worse. The “reporter” forgot about a little thing called . . . LAX:

The journalistic face-plant doesn’t end there. Had Park bestirred himself to do any actual reporting beyond Googling up the FAA document he believed supported his premise, had he done more than speak with the people making the specious accusations he wants his readers to believe, had he bothered to pick up a telephone and speak with someone at the FAA, or even a pilot working for one of the local television stations, he would have learned the following:

A few miles to the west of South Los Angeles, where one finds the highest concentration of black residents said to be so disturbed by low-flying helicopters, there is a place called Los Angeles International Airport, one of the nation’s busiest. (Perhaps Mr. Park has noticed it when looking out the window of the L.A. Times’s offices in El Segundo.) Because of its proximity to LAX, the FAA designates the sky above South L.A. as Class B airspace, the most highly restricted. All aircraft entering the area must first receive clearance from the LAX control tower, and though clearance is routinely granted it is only under certain conditions, among which are that helicopters remain below 900 feet between the Santa Monica Freeway and Florence Avenue, and below 500 feet between Florence Avenue and the Century Freeway — the very neighborhoods where the concentration of black residents is highest. This is done so as to avoid interfering with aircraft approaching LAX (and under certain weather conditions, departing from it).

That’s my bold type.

Oh my. That’s quite the oversight.

Also, that’s where the crime is. Dunphy notes that the paper’s own Homicide Report online database documents where the murders happen, and used to have a map with dots on it to represent where those murders happened . . . until the dots were removed for reasons that are, we all agree, a total and complete mystery. Dunphy:

The Los Angeles Times can make the dots disappear on their map, but they can’t do anything about the murders. That’s why the police are in — and above — those neighborhoods.

Just a devastating post, delivered with Dunphy’s usual humor and wry understatement. Kudos.

Two days ago, I published a post about the killing of two El Monte police officers, citing a tweet from Bill Melugin alleging that the killer of those officers might be buried with all expenses paid by the District Attorney’s office. I also embedded tweets from Melugin alleging that the killer was free due to Gascón’s policies, which mandated a probationary sentence for a felon with a firearm charge, despite the killer having a strike on his record. I noted that the L.A. Times had not said a word about either matter.

There are updates to this story that merit a new post. First, Gascón has denied that his office will pay for the cop killer’s funeral:

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón on Thursday denied reports that his office will pay the funeral costs for the suspect in the El Monte police shooting under a policy he introduced.

“Those rumors are unfounded and incredibly disrespectful to the families and colleagues of the two fallen officers,” Gascón said in a statement. “We also hope people will stop playing politics with trauma and that we can all get serious about how we prevent serious violence before it begins.

To be clear, in the tweet I embedded in my post, Melugin was not passing along a “rumor” but merely observing that the written policy itself suggests that the D.A. would pay for the funeral:

Gascon’s policies also suggest his office may pay for the funeral of the cop killer. When he took office, he issued a policy stating his office would pay the funeral expenses of people killed by police, “regardless of the state of the investigation or charging decision.” @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/ZLcXpI4ivX

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) June 16, 2022

As you can see (if you click on the tweet and read page two of the policy, which does not appear in this embed), the policy states that the D.A.’s Bureau of Victim Services “will also contact the families of individuals killed by police and provide support services including funeral, burial and mental health services immediately following the death regardless of the state of the investigation or charging decision.” (My bold emphasis.) Gascón’s denial does not explain how he reconciles this policy, which appears to be mandatory and does not appear to set forth any exceptions, with his action in refusing to pay for the cop killer’s funeral.

Meanwhile, the Times has now published an article titled Top stories L.A. Dist. Atty. Gascón’s policy may have led to reduced prison time for man who killed El Monte officers:

Justin Flores, 35, who also died in Tuesday’s confrontation, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and methamphetamine when he was arrested by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in 2020.

Flores had been convicted of burglary in 2011. Burglaries are strike offenses, which make suspects charged with later crimes eligible for harsher sentences. Flores’ earlier conviction means he had one strike against him when he was charged in 2020.

But the prosecutor assigned to the case, Deputy Dist. Atty. Larry Holcomb, said he had to revoke the strike allegation after Gascón took office, according to a disposition report reviewed by The Times. That’s because the new D.A. had issued a “special directive” that barred prosecutors from filing strike allegations on his first day in office.

Gascón’s policy regarding strikes was later deemed illegal by a Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, after the union representing rank-and-file prosecutors sued, seeking an injunction. In February 2021, Judge James Chalfant ruled Gascón’s policy violated California’s “three strikes” law, which requires prosecutors to file strike allegations whenever a defendant has a previous serious or violent felony conviction.

Gascón’s spokesman tried to put the blame on the line deputy and his supervisor for not seeking an exception. The supervisor is having none of it:

“The sentencing directive is presumptive. We empower DDAs to rebut that presumption if they believe extraordinary circumstances exist,” Santiago wrote. “Special Directive 20-08 states that ‘if the charged offense is probation eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a prison commitment.’ No such request was made in this case.”

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Martin Bean, who supervised the case and signed off in [sic] a disposition, said in an email to The Times that “Special Directive 20-08, which was issued at the moment the District Attorney was sworn in, required all strike priors to be dismissed. No exceptions were permitted by the directive.”

I thought these developments were significant enough to merit a new post.

As always, I make these statements based on publicly available news reports, as part of my First Amendment right to comment on matters of public interest. I do not speak for my office on this blog.

An update on my post yesterday about the Washington Post‘s failure to update their police shootings database in at least one glaring instance.

First, I looked at their stated criteria and they do evince an intent to keep the database updated, which is good:

The Post’s database is updated regularly as fatal shootings are reported and as facts emerge about individual cases.

Second, I started combing through some of the other 2019 shootings of “unarmed” black men and found no other obvious errors. I did see a lot of shootings that seemed clearly justified, and some that were questionable. But there was a clear thread throughout: the suspects were to some degree noncompliant.

Here’s an example of one of those shootings where the suspect was not just noncompliant but also violent:

But “unarmed.”

This leads me to this observation:

Fixing the culture of non-compliance with police would lower police shooting deaths more than any other solution. Pretending this is false ensures the problem will continue.

This is not to say police are never at fault. They sometimes are. Sometimes egregiously so. But in the vast majority of cases, including ones where they are at fault, full compliance from the outset would have avoided the entire incident. That is a fact and it matters, if you care about these deaths.

Nothing about my point suggests we cannot recognize and address other issues that contribute to these shootings. But non-compliance is the most common thread in these shootings (other than the suspects being male). It’s insane not to notice this and try to fix it.

Watch this video, which I linked in my recent Substack newsletter:

The civil rights activist who underwent use of the force training shown in this video concluded with this observation: “I didn’t understand how important compliance was . . . People need to comply with the orders of law enforcement officers for their own sake.”

People who say this on social media these days are roundly mocked and told they are minimizing racism and police abuse. They are told they are advocating a police state and they might as well be Nazis. But you could believe police abuse and racism are widespread and rampant and still advocate compliance because it saves lives.

It’s just a fact. Not a popular fact, but a fact nonetheless.

P.S. This is a theme I’ll likely be taking up more and more in coming days. In particular, I plan to start combing through these databases to look for the factor of noncompliance with police orders. Oddly, that’s not a factor in their database that is catalogued that you can see with a click of a mouse. I wonder why not.

This comes via Jack Dunphy on Twitter, who notes:

12 paragraphs in, they finally tell you the kid shot at the cops https://t.co/eF8EXXzLf1

— Jack Dunphy (@OfficerDunphy) August 11, 2016

Try reading the headline and 12 paragraphs out loud, as I did last night to my wife. As you do it, emphasize the parts of the story that make this a real tear-jerker about a young minority kiddo killed by those evil authority figures:

Vigil held for 14-year-old boy shot and killed by LAPD: ‘Justice for Jesse’

Te vigil Wednesday night for Jesse Romero, the 14-year-old boy shot and killed the day before by Los Angeles police, was not silent.

When it began, the crowd of more than 70 people stood in a large circle. In the center, a group of Aztec dancers yelled and blew a conch, performing to the rhythm of a drum that echoed loudly throughout Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights.

Using a bullhorn, organizer Carolyn Vera, 25, addressed the crowd: “As a community here in Boyle Heights, we’re here to denounce LAPD’s killing of Jesse Romero, in case they can’t hear us!”

In an empty lot not far away, a small group of officers stood outside their patrol cars, keeping watch.

At the vigil, men, women and children stood side-by-side, holding votive candles and signs that read, “El pueblo unido for Jesse (The people united for Jesse).”

Another stated, “No más madres en luto (No more mothers in mourning).”

The chanting focused on the slain boy, who died just a few weeks shy of his 15th birthday: “Justice for Jesse.”

But there were quieter moments: a moment of silence and the reading of a poem about the 1968 student massacre in the Tlatelolco zone of Mexico City, Mexico. Both sought to honor the dead students, Romero and anyone else killed by authorities in the U.S. and other countries.

Among those attending the vigil was 28-year-old Etujan Lopez of East Los Angeles, who said he had mixed feelings about the shooting.

“I hear different stories about what happened,” he said. “I think it’s a failure on everyone’s part.”

Lopez said there should be more community programs that help steer children away from gang activities and encourage them to get an education and professional careers.

And here comes the 12th paragraph. Can we get a drumroll, maestro? Go ahead and actually play the nine-second video, just for the drama:

And here it is:

According to the LAPD, Romero was suspected of writing gang-style graffiti in the area before leading officers on a foot chase and firing a gun at them late Tuesday afternoon.

The chase ended when Romero was fatally shot by officers at Breed Street and Cesar E. Chavez Avenue. A handgun was recovered at the scene, police said.

Indeed, there is not a shred of evidence in the story that anything happened except this: a gangster kid tagged a building, led police on a chase, and fired at them, ensuring his own demise. The End.

We’re lucky we’re not sitting through yet another funeral of a police officer killed for doing his job this weekend.

But we have to sit through endless paragraphs about a 14-year-old child — killed by “authorities” just as so many others have been “massacred” — and how the people want “justice” for him because too many moms are in mourning.

And somehow, the writer manages to convey the message: this kid was executed. There’s not a speck of evidence offered to support it. But that’s what they want you to think.

I’ll leave you with the end of the story:

Standing quietly, 17-year-old Julian Montenegro said he came out with his parents to support the Boyle Heights community that he lives in. He said he is bothered by the shooting.

“It’s really awful,” he said. “It instills fear in people of color.”

Not far, Lopez stood silently. His eyes were watery.

“I’m in tears right now,” he said, his hands on his waist. “With tragedy things might change.”

He paused, looking at the crowd.

“Hopefully they’ll change.”

Hopefully! Yes: hopefully gangsters will stop firing at cops. But until such time as it does, “justice” for people like Jesse Romero is going to look a lot like, well . . . the justice that Jesse Romero got.

I’ve got no problem with that.

J.K. Trotter at Gawker (I know) continues to show how flacks to Hillary Clinton were able to dictate to big-name journalists exactly how they would write their stories.

The latest reveal deals with Marc Ambinder, then of The Atlantic, who wrote Clinton spokeshole Phillippe Reines to ask for a copy of Hillary Clinton’s upcoming speech. Reines told Ambinder he could provide a copy on two conditions, to which Ambinder replied “ok.” Reines then wrote:

From: [Philippe Reines]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
To: Ambinder, Marc
Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

3 [conditions] actually

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!

Ambinder replied: “got it” — and like a dutiful little scribe, he complied with every request:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.

Ambinder has taken a lot of criticism for this, and deservedly so. But lost in the shuffle has been Mike Allen of Politico. There are no emails showing a similar demand being made of Allen. But check out the opening of Allen’s piece about the same speech:

In a muscular first major address as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton warns adversaries on Wednesday that they “should never see America’s willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited.”

The seating! Don’t forget the seating, Mike!

A look at the CFR’s guest seating chart shows that arrayed in the front row will be top members of her team — the envoys she has called her “force multipliers”: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Philip Goldberg and Stephen Bosworth.

We told you to say “a look at the CFR’s guest seating plan,” Mike, not “chart.” It’s a minor quibble. Otherwise, we’re pleased. Holbrooke, Mitchell, Ross. You even got the order right, Mike! Well done!

On Friday, Trotter explained how Reines had once secretly ghostwritten an item on Allen’s blog. In November, Trotter showed that Allen promised positive coverage to Chelsea Clinton and promised to provide his interview questions in advance. “No one besides me would ask her a question, and you and I would agree on them precisely in advance.” The “no surprises” promise he made to Chelsea was common practice for Allen in dealing with Democrats, emails obtained by Trotter have revealed. So the chances that Reines dictated Allen’s coverage of Clinton’s speech are approximately yes it happened . . . give or take.

The fact that these guys still work and don’t get disciplined in any way tells you all you need to know.

Excellent work by Trotter.

[guest post by JVW]

A New York Police Department officer is reportedly in a coma after being shot earlier today in Queens. Brian Moore, 25, was on duty as a plainclothes officer in an unmarked car at 212th Street and 104th Avenue in Queens when he and his partner noticed Demetrius Blackwell, 35, adjusting an object in his waistband. According to reports, the officers were aware of Blackwell’s extensive criminal record and pulled up alongside of him for questioning. Blackwell immediately drew a gun and fired at least three shots, hitting Moore who was in the driver’s seat. Blackwell fled the scene but was arrested in the neighborhood 90 minutes later.

Officer Moore is the fifth member of the NYPD to be shot in the past five months. Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were ambushed and shot dead in Brooklyn by a Baltimore man this past December, and Officers Andrew Dossi and Aliro Pellerano were wounded while responding to a January grocery store robbery in the Bronx.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has had a frosty relationship with rank-and-file NYPD members, visited Moore and his family in the hospital earlier tonight. Unlike the situation with Liu and Ramos, officers reportedly did not turn their backs to the mayor during his visit. The mayor’s office later sent out the following Tweet:

Please keep the injured police officer, his family, and the entire New York City Police Department in your thoughts tonight.

— NYC Mayor's Office (@NYCMayorsOffice) May 3, 2015

Here’s praying that Officer Moore makes a full recovery and that the violence directed at police officers stops.

[Update 5/4/15] – Officer Moore has died. The injuries were apparently quite severe, requiring the removal of half of his brain, meaning that he would never have regained full consciousness. My he rest in peace in the hall of heroes.

– JVW

Where have we heard this before? White cop shoots “unarmed” black man. Video proves it was “murder”!!!11! Cop is charged with murder. But a closer examination of the facts leads a sober observer to reserve judgment. Percentage of sober observers in the public: unclear, but loooooow.

The shooting happened in North Charleston, South Carolina. Here is the video. It’s graphic, so you have been warned. It looks bad at first glance, but you’re not the type to make up your mind about something after watching a few seconds of video without hearing all the facts, are you?

Compare the slipshod and conclusionary “video proves cop is lying!!!!11!” analysis of the Los Angeles Times to the a (slightly) more careful, frame-by-frame account provided by the local paper. Here is the L.A. Times version:

In the video, Scott, wearing a green T-shirt, appears to drop something near the officer’s feet and sprints in the opposite direction. The officer fires seven times, pauses, and then fires an eighth round as Scott slumps to the ground.

. . . .

The video differs drastically from an account Slager gave Monday. In a statement released through attorney David Aylor, Slager claimed Scott began to wrestle for control of his stun gun after a routine traffic stop.

Police reports filed after the shooting suggest Slager was chasing Scott on foot.

How does the video “differ[] drastically” from Slager’s account? He said he chased Scott on foot; we don’t know that he didn’t, before the video starts. He said Scott tried to wrestle for control of his stun gun; we don’t know that he didn’t, before the video starts.

Here is the local paper’s account:

The three-minute clip of Saturday’s shooting starts shaky, but it steadies as Slager and Scott appear to be grabbing at each other’s hands.

Slager has said through his attorney that Scott had wrested his Taser from him during a struggle.

The video appears to show Scott slapping at the officer’s hands as several objects fall to the ground. It’s not clear what the objects are.

Scott starts running away. Wires from Slager’s Taser stretch from Scott’s clothing to the officer’s hands.

With Scott more than 10 feet from Slager [this part is false — see below — P], the officer draws his pistol and fires seven times in rapid succession. After a brief pause, the officer fires one last time. Scott’s back bows, and he falls face first to the ground near a tree.

A little background on the encounter: the decedent had a previous charge for assault and battery from 1987 and was wanted on a warrant.

About that claim that the suspect was “more than 10 feet from [Officer] Slager” when he drew his pistol? That’s just false.

Here are a couple of screenshots showing the officer starting to reach for his pistol and then having it completely out. Scott is not more than 10 feet from the officer. Most people are just shy of six feet tall. In the first screenshot I would say Scott is perhaps 3-4 feet from the officer as the officer is reaching for his gun. In the second screenshot he is perhaps 5-6 feet away, and the officer already has the gun out and pointed.

Later in the video, Scott is much farther away and seemingly running away — but stay patient.

So, let’s sum up what we know. Scott has a (admittedly minimal but not nonexistent) history of violence has a warrant out for him. An officer says that Scott runs from him, and at the end of the chase struggles with him for control of a Taser. A video shows Scott slapping at the officer’s hands, and at least one object falling to the ground. Right around this time the sound of a Taser is heard on the video, corroborating the officer’s account that a Taser was used. Also corroborating the officer’s account is the fact that wires are seen between the suspect and the officer. While the suspect is still less than five feet away from the officer, the officer draws his gun. As the man is running away the officer fires several shots in rapid succession.

Does that sound like “murder”?

Now, the part of the video most people are focusing on, where the man seems to be running away as the officer shoots, does look somewhat bad. If you analyze it while sipping your morning coffee, not taking into account the struggle that clearly just happened, the adrenaline coursing through the officer’s body as a man fights him and tries to wrest his weapon away, and the short amount of time involved, it could look callous. To that end, I would like to remind you of the dangers of reaching a conclusion based on a few seconds of video from one angle.

I noted this again recently, but: back in 2006 I blogged an incident of a fatal police shooting of an unarmed man. Take a look at this video. Note that it looks like a clear execution of an unarmed man:

Add to that the fact that the man was indeed unarmed, and you have an open-and-shut case of murder by police. Right? Throw the book at them, dust off your hands, and pat yourself on the back for being willing to hold dirty and racist police officers accountable for a murder.

Except . . . here is the same shooting from another angle:

That’s a cell phone he’s brandishing in that second video. But it sure looks like he is brandishing a gun and ready to shoot the police.

Video can be misleading. Back to the North Charleston case: there is zero video of anything leading up to the shooting. There seems to have been a struggle over a Taser, and the officer lost control of it. Did he think the suspect still had it when he drew his gun?

You have newspapers rushing to judgment here. One says the suspect “dropped” an object while another says he slapped on object out of the officer’s hands. One says the officer drew his gun while the suspect was more than 10 feet away, while your eyes tell you something different. There is plenty in the video to corroborate aspects of the officer’s account, yet newspapers tell you the video differs drastically from the officer’s account, but don’t tell you how.

Me, I will wait for all the evidence to come out before making up my mind. I may be the only one in the country to do so, but I still will.

NYC protestors chant: “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”

They got what they wanted:

Two police officers in Brooklyn were fatally shot in their patrol car on Saturday in what the police commissioner called a “mindless assassination.”

The commissioner, William J. Bratton, said the suspect had shot his former girlfriend in the stomach in Baltimore earlier in the day and had apparently posted photos on an Instagram account threatening to kill New York City officers.

Mr. Bratton, speaking with Mayor Bill de Blasio at a news conference on Saturday evening, identified the officers as Wenjian Liu, a seven-year veteran of the New York Police Department, and Rafael Ramos, who had been an officer since 2012.

Mr. Bratton said the officers had been shot with “no warning” and “no provocation.”

After the shootings in Brooklyn, the man, whom Mr. Bratton identified as Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, then fled to a nearby subway station and fatally shot himself in the head.

The gunman made reference to Michael Brown and Eric Garner in his Instagram message.

Disgusting. Michael Brown was a robber and the best evidence suggests he fought with a police officer over his gun and then rushed the officer. Eric Garner, in my opinion, did not deserve the level of force he experienced, but the police officer whose actions resulted in Garner’s death clearly did not intend that result, and Garner’s poor health obviously contributed to his death.

There is a sickness in society and a hatred of police who are trying to protect the public. Sensible people need to stand up and say: enough.

UPDATE: Here are NYPD cops turning their backs on the mayor. (It’s an autoplay video so no embed. Go here and then come back.)