Misguided Opponents of Stop-And-Frisk

This past week, the television screens have been flooded with people arguing for the end of New York’s proactive policing strategy called stop-and-frisk.  New York City councilman Jumaane Williams, actor Gbenga Akinnagbe, Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP; Benjamin Crump, Amy Holmes, Angela Rye and Nathaniel Pendleton, father of Hadiya Pendleton, who was killed as a result of gang violence in Chicago earlier this year all came out in one form or another against this program all referring to it as “racial profiling.”

Particularly disturbing was Nathaniel Pendleton.  Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, he was asked if he wished stop-and-frisk had been used prior to his daughter’s murder.  Surprisingly, Mr. Pendleton said no and he questioned the effectiveness and the intent of stop-and-frisk policing.  This came as a tremendous shock considering his loss.  He too began parroting the “racial profiling” meme.  It was astonishing to see and hear Mr. Pendleton side with the notion of ‘race’ opposed to supporting a process that could’ve potentially saved his daughter’s life and the lives of countless other children in Chicago.

Frankly, it was almost sickening.

In light of all facts to the contrary, including the fact that blacks and Hispanics- both in New York City and nationwide- commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to their population, all of the aforementioned came on television to (self) righteously oppose stop-and-frisk.  With very little evidence to support their position(s) they all parroted the same basic theme– stop-and-frisk intentionally, unfairly and racially targets minorities, creating an “environment of distrust” between minorities and cops.

Newsflash- only criminals distrust cops and cops distrust criminals; those who aren’t guilty or in violation of the law have nothing to fear.  Why that’s new, I’m unsure.

With this said, it should be clear that the reflexivity of the response of “racial profiling” against stop-and-frisk without any semblance of thought or evidence indicates that these responses- aside from being saturated with emotion, reflect on one hand how deeply rooted racial grievance and racial solidarity has become in America, and on the other how destructive social virtues without principles have become.

That anyone who disagrees with stop-and-frisk would call it ‘racial profiling’ ignores the criminal element to the process.  In the Trayvon Martin trial, the evidence and testimony confirmed that Trayvon wasn’t racially profiled; he was criminally profiled.

And if stop-and-frisk is merely racially profiling without regard to crime, why is Detroit’s police chief James Craig- himself black, intending to continue stop-and-frisk in Detroit? Anyone who says that Chief Craig or Detroit is engaging in racial profiling has intentionally ignored Detroit’s escalating violent crime.

It’s the same for New York’s policy.  Again, blacks and Hispanics commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to their population (largely against other blacks and Hispanics).  Criminal statistics from the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics), FBI, and state and local law authorities confirm this unfortunate bit of reality.  As such, stop-and-frisk will be primarily enforced in black and Hispanic areas.  That’s where most of the violent crime is. If people don’t like that reality, don’t simply whine “racial profiling.”  Get off your chair and do something constructive like encouraging young blacks and Hispanics to stop committing so much damn crime!

These stop-and-frisk opponents are the people who would prefer a social profiling scheme similar to the labored and inconvenient form found at U.S. airports.  Rather than actively seek out those people who fit a very specific profile for hijacking planes, flying planes into buildings or having the affinity for suicide bombings, our TSA agents are forced to sexually-molest seventy-year-old white nuns and military veterans who’ve had limbs amputated, while searching baby strollers for contraband so as to not offend – or “racially profile”- those who fit the criminal profile.

More to the point, most of the people who advocate the program’s termination are doing so from the comfort, safety and convenience of their homes in wealthy, overwhelmingly white and low crime areas.  Amy Holmes appearing on MSNBC, admitted as much.  She lives in a predominately white, wealthy area of Manhattan.  It’s disingenuous and immoral for people who don’t live in high crime areas, to argue for a laxation of proactive policing knowing they will continue to be unaffected by the results of their thoughtless positions.  By trying to appear socially virtuous, they’re putting more poor black and Hispanic people- those who don’t have the means to be geographically or upwardly mobile- at tremendous physical risk, up to and including death.

It’s especially shortsighted considering that many of the minority residents in these cities appreciate stop-and-frisk because it improves their safety. By arguing for the program’s end, the policy’s opponents and so-called civil libertarians are arguing in favor of the potential criminals literally at the expense of the poor, law-abiding citizens whose neighborhoods will be directly and negatively impacted if stop-and-frisk is suspended.

I’d like to ask Judge Scheindlin, Jumaane Williams, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Sybrina Fulton, Ben Jealous, Benjamin Crump, Amy Holmes, Angela Rye, Nathaniel Pendleton and everyone else who’s against stop-and-frisk- who intentionally mislabel it racial profiling rather than criminal profiling- don’t poor people deserve the opportunity to live in peace and safety ensured by police presence?  Or are peace and safety only for those who can afford it?

Wanting to appear socially virtuous may feel good but in this case the results have the potential to be deadly.

Response to Race Fatigue

Last week I voiced my position(s) regarding the topic of race that was picked up by Right Wing News and elevated nationally by Realclearpolitics.com.

In the piece I lamented a diagnosed case of acute racial fatigue.  Based on several recent stories (here, here and here) and the discussions surrounding them, I’m still suffering.

That said, I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to read my article and shared it with others.  I also wanted to thank Dennis Prager and his producer Allen Estrin for allowing me to be a guest on his radio program which gave me an opportunity to share my insights with the show’s listeners.

Though I had no idea that this piece would resonate with people in the way it has, the responses I’ve received to the article (and radio appearance) demonstrate that I’m not a lone sufferer of racial fatigue.  It appears that many Americans- of all colors- are exhausted with the one-sided, superficial, blame-game victimization that has come to characterise and exacerbate many of the recent “conversations” about race.”

I also didn’t expect- but thoroughly appreciate- the positive responses and words of encouragement from people across the country who read my article and heard me on Dennis’ show.

So, a thousand ‘thank yous’ to all who have emailed, shared, called or tweeted your support for the thesis of my article.

God Bless.

The Crucifixion of Riley Cooper

Let the hypocritical crucifixion of Riley Cooper begin.

This incident is nowhere near as serious as people are making it out to be.

Last month at a Kenny Chesney concert and reportedly under the influence of alcohol, an argument was caught on tape during which Riley said (to a black security guard), “I will jump that fence and fight every n***** here.”

Uh-oh. The dreaded “N-word.”  The dreaded “N-word” phrase.

When I first heard about the incident I knew it was going to be blown out of proportion, especially in light of the last several weeks and the “discussions about race” the nation has supposedly had.

Then I thought… how many (n-word) blacks are even at a Kenny Chesney concert for Riley to fight?

That’s when I knew Riley had to be drunk.

I don’t condone what Riley Cooper said and he was right to apologize.  He was contrite and remorseful.

But now Cooper has to endure “sensitivity training” as his public penance commences.

To act as if this incident should paralyze the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles, or ruin Cooper’s career is beyond silly and actually enters the absurd- even more absurd than the re-education meetings he has to endure to prove his repentant heart and to achieve public redemption.

The hypocrisy of this entire episode is the prevalence of the use of the ‘N-word’ in popular culture. Again I’m not condoning what Riley said, but to act as if this word hasn’t saturated the God-awful rap music and their videos, television shows and movies- especially those done by Quentin Tarantino would be to deny reality.

It’s a direct result of popular culture- and in particular, black Americans themselves- that the ‘n-word’ has been legitimized, making it a commodity used by people of all races in varying contexts.

Especially in the NFL, which is why the hypocrisy so blatant it’s embarrassing.

Then I remembered what Rachel Jeantel said.

Cooper is carrying his cross to his crucifixion because he said ‘nig-ger’ instead of ‘nig-ga’.  The “er” still has racial overtones.  Add that to the fact that Cooper was born in the Midwest and went to college in the South.  Those are overtly racial ingredients.

Had Cooper simply softened the epithet by adding an “a” this would have been chalked up to a latent form of “street cred,” or been excused as the result of his hanging around the brothas and hearing it so often.  It would’ve been argued that in the football subculture, the word has been de-racialized, blah, blah, blah.

Like I said, I don’t condone Cooper saying what he said.  But to act as if his saying this word is an isolated incident and that black players don’t say it- and worse- is hypocritical.

Cooper should claim he’s gay and his transgressions will be forgiven, his absolution granted and this will all go away.