Patterico's Pontifications


NYT: “…Doesn’t Seem To Rise To The Level Of A Criminal Act. . .” .

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:56 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I realize I’m late to this and that a number of you are already caught up, but I’m going to post it anyway.

The New York Times joined in the chorus of liberals who are not supportive of the indictment against Rick Perry. Amusingly, from the get-go, they felt compelled to reassure readers they still do not like nor approve of Perry one little bit before casting doubt on the proceedings against him:

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.

The editorial then moves on to the indictment:

Mr. Perry should have left the matter [of Lehmberg’s resignation] to the courts, where both a criminal and a civil attempt to have her removed failed, or to the voters.

But his ill-advised veto still doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a criminal act. . . .

Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far.

Also today, Perry turned himself in, and looking rather dapper, had his mug shot taken.

“I’m going to fight this injustice with every fiber of my being. And we will prevail,” Perry said before walking inside the building, where he set off a metal detector but didn’t break stride, heading straight to a first-floor office to have his fingerprints taken and stand for the mug shot.

I’ve got to say, the man wears defiance well.


(h/t elissa for mug shot)


Pushing Back Against The Narrative

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:36 pm

[guest post by Dana]

WSJ’s Jason Riley took the president to task over his recent comments about Ferguson:

Riley was happy that Obama brought up black crime, “but then he attributed that black criminality — he suggested it stems from poverty or a racist criminal justice system, which is nonsense.”

“The black crime rate in 1960 was lower than it is today,” he said. “Was there less racism or less poverty than in 1960? This is about black behavior. It needs to be addressed head-on. It’s about attitudes toward the criminal justice system in these neighborhoods, where young black men have no sense of what it means to be a male or what it means to be black.”

“And he needs to talk about that head-on,” Riley repeated, “not dismiss it as a product of poverty or racism, which is a dodge.”

Riley also rebuked “hustlers” like Michael Eric Dyson and Sharpton who are pushing what Riley refers to as the false narrative that “black men live in fear of being shot by cops in those neighborhoods.” He disagrees:

I know something about growing up black and male in the inner city,” Riley explained, “and it’s not that hard to avoid getting shot by a cop. They pull you over, you answer their questions. you’re on your way.”

“The real difficulty is not getting shot by other black people, if you are a young black man in these neighborhoods!” Riley continued. “And again, that is something we need to talk about more! Cops are not the problem.”

“Cops are not producing these black bodies in the morgues every weekend in Chicago, in New York and Detroit and so forth,” he concluded. “That’s not cops. Those are black people shooting black people.”

Sharing his unique perspective, which dovetails with Riley’s comments, a 17-year veteran with the LAPD wrote today:

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

[If] you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.


Brown Autopsy: Shots From Front

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:54 am

So the autopsy is out and the shots came from the front — although one shot is arguably ambiguous.

Hot Air has video of the Brown family lawyer claiming that that shot, a shot to the head, was “back to front” — but that’s meaningless given the specific facts. It’s a shot that enters the top of the head and comes out the right eye socket. Unless the officer was standing directly over a kneeling Brown, which nobody has said to my knowledge, all it really means is that the top of Brown’s head was pointing towards the officer when the shot was fired. A head can move around quite a bit in a fluid situation. We really can’t know whether from the angle of the shot whether Brown was falling backward, or whether he had his head down and was facing forward.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0690 secs.