hotair--2020-06-22--Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Politico's argument for reducing police spending is ... something

Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Politico's argument for reducing police spending is ... something else

Do we spend too much on policing ?
Probably true , although not for the reasons Politico offers in this narrow look at data around crime rates and policing .
This attempts to give an answer to the question of “ defunding the police , ” a narrative which the media has forcefully morphed into cutting police spending .
The only context provided for this argument is homicide rates , which assumes that homicide is the only crime for which policing is needed — already one bias in an approach that contains several .
The crux of this argument is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police spending has gone up over the last 25 years or so .
Could that be a causal relationship ?
Perhaps , Politico allows , but it ’ s an uneven distribution if so : A POLITICO analysis of city finance data shows police departments have grown dramatically in size since the mid-1990s , when federal funding first put thousands of new cops on the streets .
During the same period , the national homicide rate dropped — a sign to many policymakers that spending on law and order works .
But over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corresponding decreases in crime .
Since 1995 , the year after the landmark national crime bill went into effect , the U.S. homicide rate has dropped by a third .
Police spending per capita , however , has increased by 46 percent nationally — and in some cities , by far more .
Studies have shown that an increase in sworn police officers reduces instances of crime .
However , increases in other factors — such as social welfare , access to health care , employment and other social services — have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s unclear the extent to which increases in police spending are responsible for falling rates of violent crime .
“ The perception was that the police have a direct relationship with crime , so the more police … the lower the rate of crime , we thought .
But that has not been the case for some time , ” said Dr. Howard Henderson , founding director of the Texas Southern University Center for Justice Research .
“ There are other factors that are at play that affect that relationship beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In the first place , why are we only discussing homicide rates ?
Police enforce a panoply of laws besides homicides — sexual assaults , property crimes , traffic laws , domestic violence incidents , battery , public drunkenness , and so on .
In fact , one context that never does get mentioned is just how many more laws have been passed in that time requiring more enforcement by police .
Between federal funding mandates and grassroots grievance campaigns , police likely have gotten a bigger job in this period of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in resources .
A better metric would be total arrests , but even that might be misleading .
Those didn ’ t really start declining significantly until a decade or so ago , and the reporting on arrests may not be entirely reliable .
Arrests still only cover a portion of what police do ; how many calls do they get year-on-year ?
How many traffic stops do they conduct for things like , say , texting while driving — which didn ’ t exist in 1990 ?
Politico also leaves out broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall .
The Urban Institute analyzed police spending not “ per capita , ” as Politico did , but as the portion of overall state and local spending over the last 40 years .
Police funding increased in almost exact proportion as overall government spending , they determined , even when adjusting for inflation : That 273 % increase raises a question about the impact of demands for bigger government , of course .
It also raises a question about the efficiency of that spending .
How many police officers do we get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it costs the city of Minneapolis over $ 180,000 per police employee ( not just sworn officers ) , which means they can afford fewer officers on the street .
The Politico analysis assumes that more spending means more policing , when it might just mean more expensive policing .
In other words , we might well be spending too much on policing , but not because we have too much policing .
The opposite may well be true : we may not be able to implement the successful model of community-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanks to legacy contracts with police ( and other public employee unions ) that make it much more costly than 25 or 40 years ago .
And who negotiated those contracts at the city and county level ?
Almost exclusively , it was the party of Bigger Government .
Let ’ s put it another way : Does anyone really feel that we have gotten 273 % improvement from municipal services in state and local government in any sense over the last 40 years ?
If the answer to that is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why limit this discussion to policing ?
And for that matter , why don ’ t voters in these jurisdictions hold the progressives accountable that ran all of these municipalities , including police departments , during that 40-year era ?
Those are the questions we should be asking .
It ’ s hardly a surprise that the media keeps actively avoiding them by torturously parsed statistical analysis like this .

Do we spend too much on policing? Probably true, although not for the reasons Politico offers in this narrow look at data around crime rates and policing. This attempts to give an answer to the question of “defunding the police,” a narrative which the media has forcefully morphed into cutting police spending. The only context provided for this argument is homicide rates, which assumes that homicide is the only crime for which policing is needed — already one bias in an approach that contains several.
The crux of this argument is that homicide rates have gone down while police spending has gone up over the last 25 years or so. Could that be a causal relationship? Perhaps, Politico allows, but it’s an uneven distribution if so:
A POLITICO analysis of city finance data shows police departments have grown dramatically in size since the mid-1990s, when federal funding first put thousands of new cops on the streets. During the same period, the national homicide rate dropped — a sign to many policymakers that spending on law and order works. But over time, police spending has outpaced the corresponding decreases in crime. Since 1995, the year after the landmark national crime bill went into effect, the U.S. homicide rate has dropped by a third. Police spending per capita, however, has increased by 46 percent nationally — and in some cities, by far more. Studies have shown that an increase in sworn police officers reduces instances of crime. However, increases in other factors — such as social welfare, access to health care, employment and other social services — have also been shown to decrease crime rates. It’s unclear the extent to which increases in police spending are responsible for falling rates of violent crime. “The perception was that the police have a direct relationship with crime, so the more police … the lower the rate of crime, we thought. But that has not been the case for some time,” said Dr. Howard Henderson, founding director of the Texas Southern University Center for Justice Research. “There are other factors that are at play that affect that relationship beyond simply just the police’s presence.”
In the first place, why are we only discussing homicide rates? Police enforce a panoply of laws besides homicides — sexual assaults, property crimes, traffic laws, domestic violence incidents, battery, public drunkenness, and so on. In fact, one context that never does get mentioned is just how many more laws have been passed in that time requiring more enforcement by police. Between federal funding mandates and grassroots grievance campaigns, police likely have gotten a bigger job in this period of time, which would explain the increase in resources.
A better metric would be total arrests, but even that might be misleading. Those didn’t really start declining significantly until a decade or so ago, and the reporting on arrests may not be entirely reliable. Arrests still only cover a portion of what police do; how many calls do they get year-on-year? How many traffic stops do they conduct for things like, say, texting while driving — which didn’t exist in 1990?
Politico also leaves out broader context of increased demand for more governance overall. The Urban Institute analyzed police spending not “per capita,” as Politico did, but as the portion of overall state and local spending over the last 40 years. Police funding increased in almost exact proportion as overall government spending, they determined, even when adjusting for inflation:
From 1977 to 2017, state and local government spending on police increased from $42 billion to $115 billion (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars). However, as a percentage of direct general expenditures, police spending has remained consistently at just under 4 percent for the past 40 years.
That 273% increase raises a question about the impact of demands for bigger government, of course. It also raises a question about the efficiency of that spending. How many police officers do we get for the expanded investment? For instance, it costs the city of Minneapolis over $180,000 per police employee (not just sworn officers), which means they can afford fewer officers on the street. The Politico analysis assumes that more spending means more policing, when it might just mean more expensive policing.
In other words, we might well be spending too much on policing, but not because we have too much policing. The opposite may well be true: we may not be able to implement the successful model of community-based policing because we have too few officers, thanks to legacy contracts with police (and other public employee unions) that make it much more costly than 25 or 40 years ago. And who negotiated those contracts at the city and county level? Almost exclusively, it was the party of Bigger Government.
Let’s put it another way: Does anyone really feel that we have gotten 273% improvement from municipal services in state and local government in any sense over the last 40 years? If the answer to that is no — and it should be — then why limit this discussion to policing? And for that matter, why don’t voters in these jurisdictions hold the progressives accountable that ran all of these municipalities, including police departments, during that 40-year era?
Those are the questions we should be asking. It’s hardly a surprise that the media keeps actively avoiding them by torturously parsed statistical analysis like this.


hotair--2020-06-22--Bolton: Yes, I heard Trump tie Ukraine military aid directly to the Biden investigation

The Times reported this detail from Bolton ’ s manuscript in late January during the final days of the impeachment trial , when there remained a shred of suspense about whether Bolton would be called to testify .
But it ’ s one thing to have a newspaper claiming that someone has said something incriminating and it ’ s another to hear that person actually say it .
Anyway , nothing much here except firsthand eyewitness evidence that the central thesis of the impeachment case against Trump was correct all along : Not only was there a quid pro quo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on it .
There was never real doubt about that , and knowing it wouldn ’ t have stopped a GOP acquittal on grounds that the president ’ s behavior may have been bad but wasn ’ t impeachable .
( Nothing would have stopped a GOP acquittal . )
But it was noted repeatedly during the impeachment process that , for all the Democrats ’ hype , no witness ever quoted Trump himself as conditioning U.S. military aid to Ukraine on dirt from Ukraine about the Bidens and the CrowdStrike server @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness , Gordon Sondland , confirmed that there was a quid pro quo and that America ’ s foreign policy leadership all understood that , but even he didn ’ t quite go so far as to incriminate Trump directly .
There was always a small , however absurd , possibility that Rudy Giuliani had masterminded the whole shady deal unbeknownst to our poor president .
No , said Bolton to ABC last night .
Trump knew .
RADDATZ : I want to go to some specifics on Ukraine .
Aug. 20 comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump about the security assistance .
What exactly did the president say to you ?
BOLTON : Well , he directly linked the provision of that assistance with the investigation… RADDATZ : He said in the book , he said he wasn ’ t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over .
RADDATZ : So this was not the first time you heard the president himself directly link the investigation and the Ukraine aid ?
Or was it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversations , some of which involved Rudy Giuliani , or references to Rudy Giuliani or others — where this connection was becoming clear .
The conversation in August was the crispest indication of the linkage .
But indirectly , and by clear implication , it had been growing for quite some time… RADDATZ : How often did he talk about Biden and Ukraine ?
BOLTON : As the months and weeks wore on , he talked about them more and more and more .
And I think this was a case of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of his inside advisors as well , and just becoming obsessive on the point that if he could crack open what happened in Ukraine , he could discredit Biden — discredit Hillary as sort of a — icing on the cake .
And that that would be an enormous boost for his reelection .
There was no doubt this was political .
And what he was able to do during impeachment was convince people that somehow he only had the issue of corruption in the Ukraine in mind .
And that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no big deal .
Just the smoking gun in a corruption case against the president of the United States which the star witness declined to produce at trial .
Happens all the time .
Martha Raddatz went on to grill Bolton about why he didn ’ t bring this info to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler during the impeachment inquiry , especially given Bolton ’ s claim in the book that the Ukraine matter was just one of several dubious things Trump had done while conducting foreign policy .
Bolton responded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process was , with the Democrats focused too narrowly on Ukraine and rushing through it because they wanted it over before the Democratic presidential primaries got going .
That ’ s true , but Bolton himself was the potential key to expanding the inquiry ’ s scope : If he wanted the process to slow down and bring some Republicans onboard , nothing would have done that like Bolton himself testifying to the fact that , e.g.
, Trump reportedly reassured Erdogan that the DOJ ’ s probe of Halkbank would lighten up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ” in the Southern District of New York were replaced .
When Raddatz made that point to him , that he more than anyone else in America had the power to reshape the impeachment inquiry , Bolton retreated into claiming that his testimony wouldn ’ t have made any difference .
That ’ s also true — sort of .
Certainly , there were never going to be 20 Senate Republicans willing to convict and remove Trump , no matter what facts were produced .
But Bolton ’ s testimony might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House .
It might have at least gotten Lisa Murkowski to join Mitt Romney in voting for removal in the Senate .
More importantly , it might have raised the political cost to congressional Republicans who voted for acquittal by convincing more voters that Trump should be removed .
He would have been acquitted no matter what , but Susan Collins ’ s acquittal vote in a universe where Bolton testified might have been much more expensive than her acquittal vote in the universe we occupy .
I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wanting to testify before the House .
Maybe , as a lifelong conservative , he just couldn ’ t stomach the thought of assisting a Democratic effort against a Republican president , even a Republican president whom he found contemptible .
My best guess is that , although he despises Trump and is obviously willing to do him some political damage , his loyalty to the GOP made him leery of offering testimony that would put a lot of congressional Republicans in an awkward spot politically .
But that theory is complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting them in an awkward spot now , belatedly , by spilling everything he has .
Collins is going to be asked , “ Knowing what you know now from Bolton ’ s book , would you have voted to remove the president in February ?
” Whatever answer she gives will be awkward .
On the other hand , I also don ’ t know why Democrats like Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries are unwilling to call Bolton to testify now .
As much as they might hate him for his politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have mattered , one would think they ’ d be eager to trumpet Bolton ’ s allegations about Trump and haul him into a hearing room for an “ I told you so ” vindication session about the Ukraine quid pro quo .
They ’ re being spiteful in not wanting him to testify , which is understandable in human terms but malpractice in political terms .
Axios has a pair of interesting scoops today , one of which appears to undermine Bolton ’ s central thesis about Trump and the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That thesis is that the president conducts foreign policy entirely through the lens of how it might affect his chances at reelection .
All presidents bear in mind the domestic consequences of action abroad , but only as one factor in their thinking ; Bolton believes that it ’ s the only factor in Trump ’ s thinking , which is how U.S. military aid to Ukraine came to depend on dirt on Joe Biden .
But this would seem to undercut that : What ’ s surprising about that is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hugely important state of Florida loathe the Castro-esque Maduro .
If Trump were conducting foreign policy purely through the lens of reelection , he ’ d never say such a thing .
Either his fondness for strongmen and/or for big unprecedented photo-op summits a la the two with Kim Jong Un trumped his electoral thinking with Maduro or he just , er , forgot that his Venezuela policy could make or break him in Florida .
His aides must have had a word with him about it since the Axios interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today : The other scoop , also from Axios , finds Trump candidly subordinating America ’ s opposition to China ’ s concentration camps for Uighurs to his own interest in a trade deal .
Bolton claims in his book that Trump told Xi Jinping himself that he didn ’ t care about the Chinese interning Uighurs in Xinjiang ; Bolton also claims that a trade deal with China was Trump ’ s political white whale , the thing he believed would ensure his reelection if only he could land it and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to trade nearly everything .
Including this : Here ’ s a bit from Bolton ’ s interview last night .
His book ’ s coming out on Tuesday , despite the DOJ ’ s best efforts .
But his profits are probably going straight into the DOJ ’ s checking account .

The Times reported this detail from Bolton’s manuscript in late January during the final days of the impeachment trial, when there remained a shred of suspense about whether Bolton would be called to testify. But it’s one thing to have a newspaper claiming that someone has said something incriminating and it’s another to hear that person actually say it.
Anyway, nothing much here except firsthand eyewitness evidence that the central thesis of the impeachment case against Trump was correct all along: Not only was there a quid pro quo with Ukraine, the president himself was in on it. There was never real doubt about that, and knowing it wouldn’t have stopped a GOP acquittal on grounds that the president’s behavior may have been bad but wasn’t impeachable. (Nothing would have stopped a GOP acquittal.) But it was noted repeatedly during the impeachment process that, for all the Democrats’ hype, no witness ever quoted Trump himself as conditioning U.S. military aid to Ukraine on dirt from Ukraine about the Bidens and the CrowdStrike server. The House’s most damning witness, Gordon Sondland, confirmed that there was a quid pro quo and that America’s foreign policy leadership all understood that, but even he didn’t quite go so far as to incriminate Trump directly. There was always a small, however absurd, possibility that Rudy Giuliani had masterminded the whole shady deal unbeknownst to our poor president.
No, said Bolton to ABC last night. Trump knew.
RADDATZ: I want to go to some specifics on Ukraine. Aug. 20 comes a key conversation you had with President Trump about the security assistance. What exactly did the president say to you? BOLTON: Well, he directly linked the provision of that assistance with the investigation… RADDATZ: He said in the book, he said he wasn’t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over. BOLTON: Right. RADDATZ: So this was not the first time you heard the president himself directly link the investigation and the Ukraine aid? Or was it? BOLTON: No. There were other conversations, some of which involved Rudy Giuliani, or references to Rudy Giuliani or others — where this connection was becoming clear. The conversation in August was the crispest indication of the linkage. But indirectly, and by clear implication, it had been growing for quite some time… RADDATZ: How often did he talk about Biden and Ukraine? BOLTON: As the months and weeks wore on, he talked about them more and more and more. And I think this was a case of him listening to outside advisors, and maybe some of his inside advisors as well, and just becoming obsessive on the point that if he could crack open what happened in Ukraine, he could discredit Biden — discredit Hillary as sort of a — icing on the cake. And that that would be an enormous boost for his reelection. There was no doubt this was political. And what he was able to do during impeachment was convince people that somehow he only had the issue of corruption in the Ukraine in mind. And that was the least of his concerns.
Eh, no big deal. Just the smoking gun in a corruption case against the president of the United States which the star witness declined to produce at trial. Happens all the time.
Martha Raddatz went on to grill Bolton about why he didn’t bring this info to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler during the impeachment inquiry, especially given Bolton’s claim in the book that the Ukraine matter was just one of several dubious things Trump had done while conducting foreign policy. Bolton responded with some argle-bargle about how partisan the impeachment process was, with the Democrats focused too narrowly on Ukraine and rushing through it because they wanted it over before the Democratic presidential primaries got going. That’s true, but Bolton himself was the potential key to expanding the inquiry’s scope: If he wanted the process to slow down and bring some Republicans onboard, nothing would have done that like Bolton himself testifying to the fact that, e.g., Trump reportedly reassured Erdogan that the DOJ’s probe of Halkbank would lighten up just as soon as the “Obama people” in the Southern District of New York were replaced.
When Raddatz made that point to him, that he more than anyone else in America had the power to reshape the impeachment inquiry, Bolton retreated into claiming that his testimony wouldn’t have made any difference. That’s also true — sort of. Certainly, there were never going to be 20 Senate Republicans willing to convict and remove Trump, no matter what facts were produced. But Bolton’s testimony might have swung a handful of Republican votes in the House. It might have at least gotten Lisa Murkowski to join Mitt Romney in voting for removal in the Senate. More importantly, it might have raised the political cost to congressional Republicans who voted for acquittal by convincing more voters that Trump should be removed. He would have been acquitted no matter what, but Susan Collins’s acquittal vote in a universe where Bolton testified might have been much more expensive than her acquittal vote in the universe we occupy.
I don’t know what the real reason is for him not wanting to testify before the House. Maybe, as a lifelong conservative, he just couldn’t stomach the thought of assisting a Democratic effort against a Republican president, even a Republican president whom he found contemptible. My best guess is that, although he despises Trump and is obviously willing to do him some political damage, his loyalty to the GOP made him leery of offering testimony that would put a lot of congressional Republicans in an awkward spot politically. But that theory is complicated by the fact that he’s putting them in an awkward spot now, belatedly, by spilling everything he has. Collins is going to be asked, “Knowing what you know now from Bolton’s book, would you have voted to remove the president in February?” Whatever answer she gives will be awkward. On the other hand, I also don’t know why Democrats like Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries are unwilling to call Bolton to testify now. As much as they might hate him for his politics and for refusing to testify when it might have mattered, one would think they’d be eager to trumpet Bolton’s allegations about Trump and haul him into a hearing room for an “I told you so” vindication session about the Ukraine quid pro quo. They’re being spiteful in not wanting him to testify, which is understandable in human terms but malpractice in political terms.
Axios has a pair of interesting scoops today, one of which appears to undermine Bolton’s central thesis about Trump and the other of which appears to confirm it. That thesis is that the president conducts foreign policy entirely through the lens of how it might affect his chances at reelection. All presidents bear in mind the domestic consequences of action abroad, but only as one factor in their thinking; Bolton believes that it’s the only factor in Trump’s thinking, which is how U.S. military aid to Ukraine came to depend on dirt on Joe Biden. But this would seem to undercut that:
In an Oval Office interview with Axios on Friday, President Trump suggested he’s had second thoughts about his decision to recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela and said he is open to meeting with dictator Nicolás Maduro. Driving the news: Asked whether he would meet with Maduro, Trump said, “I would maybe think about that. … Maduro would like to meet. And I’m never opposed to meetings — you know, rarely opposed to meetings. “I always say, you lose very little with meetings. But at this moment, I’ve turned them down.”
What’s surprising about that is that the many Americans of Cuban and Venezuelan descent in the hugely important state of Florida loathe the Castro-esque Maduro. If Trump were conducting foreign policy purely through the lens of reelection, he’d never say such a thing. Either his fondness for strongmen and/or for big unprecedented photo-op summits a la the two with Kim Jong Un trumped his electoral thinking with Maduro or he just, er, forgot that his Venezuela policy could make or break him in Florida. His aides must have had a word with him about it since the Axios interview was published because he tweeted this earlier today:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1275072468709859328
The other scoop, also from Axios, finds Trump candidly subordinating America’s opposition to China’s concentration camps for Uighurs to his own interest in a trade deal. Bolton claims in his book that Trump told Xi Jinping himself that he didn’t care about the Chinese interning Uighurs in Xinjiang; Bolton also claims that a trade deal with China was Trump’s political white whale, the thing he believed would ensure his reelection if only he could land it and thus the thing for which he’d be willing to trade nearly everything. Including this:
Asked why he hadn’t yet enacted Treasury sanctions against Chinese Communist Party officials or entities tied to the camps where the Chinese government detains Uighurs and other Muslim minorities, Trump replied, “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal.” “And I made a great deal, $250 billion potentially worth of purchases. And by the way, they’re buying a lot, you probably have seen.” Trump continued: “And when you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot. I put tariffs on China, which are far worse than any sanction you can think of.”
Here’s a bit from Bolton’s interview last night. His book’s coming out on Tuesday, despite the DOJ’s best efforts. But his profits are probably going straight into the DOJ’s checking account.


hotair--2020-06-22--John McWhorter: This far-left ideology we're seeing is a religion

As I ’ ve said before , academic John McWhorter is someone who has frequently strayed from ideological orthodoxy on the question of race and policing .
For instance , last year he gave an interview on the 5 year anniversary of the death of Mike Brown which pointed out that a lot of what we initially heard about the case turned out not to be true .
Over the weekend , McWhorter was interviewed by Bret Weinstein for his podcast show .
The two discussed the current Black Lives Matter movement and the far-left ideology that seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s city streets .
Asked directly if he believes George Floyd was murdered , McWhorter said he believed he had been but then added that there are other cases in which police had done nearly the same thing to white suspects .
Therefore , he argued , the conclusion that the color of Floyd ’ s skin was the main factor in his death rather than , say , a problem with policing more broadly is not certain .
He suggested that the media was part of the problem because the video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to see over and over .
“ I would say that George Floyd was murdered but the problem is that to say that it was because of his black skin detracts from solutions to America ’ s problems that would float all boats.
” “ As I ’ ve written often , we ’ re dealing not with a political ideology but with something that an anthropologist would recognize as religion , ” McWhorter said .
He continued , “ And it ’ s easy to hear me say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to make a rhetorical point .
I don ’ t mean like a religion , [ it ] is a religion .
The way that you understand how these people operate is to actually imagine how you would interact with a Mormon who you were trying to convince that Joseph Smith didn ’ t dig up tablets in the back yard .
“ And again , not rhetoric folks .
Exactly that .
It ’ s the same frame of mind .
It ’ s just that our language doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kinds of ideology we ’ ve seen over about the past ten years .
“ The tenet of this religion that dominates is that to be against racism trumps literally everything else .
There are ranked priorities and being against racism…is everything , to the point that you allow yourself not to make any logical sense .
You must be against racism and so George Floyd must have been murdered because he was black and there is no questions asked .
“ And you can not have any kind of dialogue with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you have any kind of dialogue with them , if you question anything that they say…you are a racist and there are no questions to be asked.
” As he said , McWhorter has written about this before .
In 2018 he wrote this about the adoration for Ta-Nehisi Coates in certain circles : There is an idleness in this cult of atonement , in that it can not get whites what they want .
I wonder if today ’ s atoners quite understand that “ getting it ” will not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them any more than Marlon Riggs liked the graduate student and her friends despite their leftist politics .
There is an Old Testament quality to the Coates preachings , for example .
He is unmoved by the deaths of white firefighters during 9/11 , uncomfortable seeing his son as a tot playing comfortably with white kids , and sees young white parents with their big strollers as white people taking up too much space as always .
The degree of self-hatred—if sincere—is staggering in whites proclaiming how much they “ love ” this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , ultimately , is often as condescending as nakedly dismissive views of blacks were in the bad old days .
I doubt most whites truly think racism is so acridly pervasive and persistent in this country that a middle-class black man ought to fear his children playing with theirs , or look upon firefighters barbecued on 9/11 as mere racists getting their just desserts .
Pretending to believe this sort of thing is insincere and insulting .
It ’ s a pat on the head… We have gone from most whites being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black people at all to whites being chilled to their bones at the possibility of harboring racism in their souls , terrified at the prospect of being singled out as a heretic , and forgetting that the indulgences they purchase and the praying they do for their souls has more to do with them than with anyone black and their problems .
Some have called this moment the Great Awokening and I still think that fits .
Here ’ s the full interview .
The portion above comes about 15 minutes in but @ @ @ @ @ @

As I’ve said before, academic John McWhorter is someone who has frequently strayed from ideological orthodoxy on the question of race and policing. For instance, last year he gave an interview on the 5 year anniversary of the death of Mike Brown which pointed out that a lot of what we initially heard about the case turned out not to be true. Over the weekend, McWhorter was interviewed by Bret Weinstein for his podcast show. The two discussed the current Black Lives Matter movement and the far-left ideology that seems to have migrated from college campuses to America’s city streets.
Asked directly if he believes George Floyd was murdered, McWhorter said he believed he had been but then added that there are other cases in which police had done nearly the same thing to white suspects. Therefore, he argued, the conclusion that the color of Floyd’s skin was the main factor in his death rather than, say, a problem with policing more broadly is not certain. He suggested that the media was part of the problem because the video of Floyd’s death is the one we’re going to see over and over. “I would say that George Floyd was murdered but the problem is that to say that it was because of his black skin detracts from solutions to America’s problems that would float all boats.”
“As I’ve written often, we’re dealing not with a political ideology but with something that an anthropologist would recognize as religion,” McWhorter said. He continued, “And it’s easy to hear me say that and think that I’m trying to make a rhetorical point. I don’t mean like a religion, [it] is a religion. The way that you understand how these people operate is to actually imagine how you would interact with a Mormon who you were trying to convince that Joseph Smith didn’t dig up tablets in the back yard.
“And again, not rhetoric folks. Exactly that. It’s the same frame of mind. It’s just that our language doesn’t happen to apply the label religion to the kinds of ideology we’ve seen over about the past ten years.
“The tenet of this religion that dominates is that to be against racism trumps literally everything else. There are ranked priorities and being against racism…is everything, to the point that you allow yourself not to make any logical sense. You must be against racism and so George Floyd must have been murdered because he was black and there is no questions asked.
“And you cannot have any kind of dialogue with a person of color about racism. If you have any kind of dialogue with them, if you question anything that they say…you are a racist and there are no questions to be asked.”
As he said, McWhorter has written about this before. In 2018 he wrote this about the adoration for Ta-Nehisi Coates in certain circles:
There is an idleness in this cult of atonement, in that it cannot get whites what they want. I wonder if today’s atoners quite understand that “getting it” will not, for example, make Ta-Nehisi Coates like them any more than Marlon Riggs liked the graduate student and her friends despite their leftist politics. There is an Old Testament quality to the Coates preachings, for example. He is unmoved by the deaths of white firefighters during 9/11, uncomfortable seeing his son as a tot playing comfortably with white kids, and sees young white parents with their big strollers as white people taking up too much space as always. The degree of self-hatred—if sincere—is staggering in whites proclaiming how much they “love” this kind of scripture. And all of this, ultimately, is often as condescending as nakedly dismissive views of blacks were in the bad old days. I doubt most whites truly think racism is so acridly pervasive and persistent in this country that a middle-class black man ought to fear his children playing with theirs, or look upon firefighters barbecued on 9/11 as mere racists getting their just desserts. Pretending to believe this sort of thing is insincere and insulting. It’s a pat on the head… We have gone from most whites being unaware that racism was a problem for black people at all to whites being chilled to their bones at the possibility of harboring racism in their souls, terrified at the prospect of being singled out as a heretic, and forgetting that the indulgences they purchase and the praying they do for their souls has more to do with them than with anyone black and their problems.
Some have called this moment the Great Awokening and I still think that fits. Here’s the full interview. The portion above comes about 15 minutes in but the whole thing is interesting.


hotair--2020-06-22--CNN: We should probably put up a wall around our building

As you probably heard , when the George Floyd riots engulfed Atlanta recently , people caused a significant amount of property damage to shops , vehicles and local infrastructure .
One other victim of the unrest was the home office of CNN , which wound up with broken windows and graffiti sprayed on the walls .
With the unrest continuing , it seems that the cable news network has suddenly seen the light and determined that their building needs a bit more protection .
So , like any normal enterprise , they put up a wall to keep the riffraff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Townhall colleague Julio Rosas captured some pictures and the New York Post couldn ’ t resist a bit of snark in pointing out the obvious hypocrisy on display .
CNN has discovered a new appreciation for walls .
The CNN Center in Atlanta added some imposing metal fencing after their building was attacked during violent protests after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month .
Photos of the new barriers were posted to Twitter Friday by Townhall reporter Julio Rosas .
On May 29 , a storm of protesters descended on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were given a boost a day later by rapper Killer Mike , who called out the network in a press conference .
Who would CNN need to worry about to the extent that they felt the need to put up a wall around their building ?
Surely it couldn ’ t be the “ peaceful protesters ” that they reminded us about at every turn while blaming all of the looted stores and Molotov cocktails on “ outside agitators.
” Perhaps they heard that the Nazis were on the march again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spoiler alert .
If that ’ s the case , you ’ re going to need a much larger wall . )
Wait a minute .
Weren ’ t we all supposed to accept the idea that walls are bad ?
I ’ m sure somebody told me that at some point .
In fact , I ’ m almost positive that a number of people told us that and several of them work at CNN .
I suppose this is the structural security equivalent of saying that a liberal is a conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Not that I expect CNN to change their tune when it comes to the southern border wall . )
That ’ s not the only example .
I ’ ve lost track of the number of liberals I saw chuckling on Twitter because the White House decided to add additional fencing around the property during the riots .
Of course , that ’ s not really an exact parallel , is it ?
The difference is that the current President has never had a bad thing to say about walls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency , at least in part , to his support of walls .
There is still no excuse for the destruction of public or private property when people are supposedly just speaking up about the issues of the day .
That turns a protest into a riot instantly .
And CNN ’ s property deserves the same protection under the rules of law and order as anyone else .
But that won ’ t stop some of us from owning up to a brief chuckle over the optics of all this .

As you probably heard, when the George Floyd riots engulfed Atlanta recently, people caused a significant amount of property damage to shops, vehicles and local infrastructure. One other victim of the unrest was the home office of CNN, which wound up with broken windows and graffiti sprayed on the walls. With the unrest continuing, it seems that the cable news network has suddenly seen the light and determined that their building needs a bit more protection. So, like any normal enterprise, they put up a wall to keep the riffraff away from their pristine structure. Our Townhall colleague Julio Rosas captured some pictures and the New York Post couldn’t resist a bit of snark in pointing out the obvious hypocrisy on display.
CNN has discovered a new appreciation for walls. The CNN Center in Atlanta added some imposing metal fencing after their building was attacked during violent protests after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month. Photos of the new barriers were posted to Twitter Friday by Townhall reporter Julio Rosas. On May 29, a storm of protesters descended on the building, smashing windows and cheering. They were given a boost a day later by rapper Killer Mike, who called out the network in a press conference.
CNN has put up a fence outside its HQ after the building was attacked during the riots in Atlanta a few weeks ago. pic.twitter.com/Mdabg9qmiM — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 19, 2020
Who would CNN need to worry about to the extent that they felt the need to put up a wall around their building? Surely it couldn’t be the “peaceful protesters” that they reminded us about at every turn while blaming all of the looted stores and Molotov cocktails on “outside agitators.” Perhaps they heard that the Nazis were on the march again. Or possibly the extraterrestrials. (Spoiler alert. If that’s the case, you’re going to need a much larger wall.)
Wait a minute. Weren’t we all supposed to accept the idea that walls are bad? I’m sure somebody told me that at some point. In fact, I’m almost positive that a number of people told us that and several of them work at CNN. I suppose this is the structural security equivalent of saying that a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet. (Not that I expect CNN to change their tune when it comes to the southern border wall.)
That’s not the only example. I’ve lost track of the number of liberals I saw chuckling on Twitter because the White House decided to add additional fencing around the property during the riots. Of course, that’s not really an exact parallel, is it? The difference is that the current President has never had a bad thing to say about walls. One could argue that he owes his presidency, at least in part, to his support of walls.
There is still no excuse for the destruction of public or private property when people are supposedly just speaking up about the issues of the day. That turns a protest into a riot instantly. And CNN’s property deserves the same protection under the rules of law and order as anyone else. But that won’t stop some of us from owning up to a brief chuckle over the optics of all this.


hotair--2020-06-22--MN correctional officers' discrimination complaint: Why weren't we allowed to guard cop in Floyd kil

MN correctional officers' discrimination complaint: Why weren't we allowed to guard cop in Floyd killing?

And the hits just keep a-comin ’ .
As if Minnesota law enforcement didn ’ t already have its hands full of racial-bias issues in the wake of the George Floyd homicide , the detention of the man who knelt on his neck may have provoked another round .
According to eight corrections officers , the Ramsey County jail holding Derek Chauvin segregated officers of color off his floor in his May 29 booking and entry into the facility , prompting them to file a discrimination complaint with the state .
Is this a case of racial animus , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superintendent claims the latter , but the attorney representing the clients called that “ absurd ” : As Chauvin arrived , all officers of color were ordered to a separate floor , and a supervisor told one of them that , because of their race , they would be a potential “ liability ” around Chauvin , according a copy of racial discrimination charges obtained by the Star Tribune .
“ I understood that the decision to segregate us had been made because we could not be trusted to carry out our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solely because of the color of our skin , ” wrote one acting sergeant , who is black .
“ I am not aware of a similar situation where white officers were segregated from an inmate.
” … In explaining his actions , jail Superintendent Steve Lydon later told superiors that he was informed Chauvin would be arriving in 10 minutes , and made a call “ to protect and support ” minority employees by shielding them from Chauvin .
“ Out of care and concern , and without the comfort of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure to employees of color to a murder suspect who could potentially aggravate those feelings , ” Lydon reportedly said in a statement given during an internal investigation and provided by the Sheriff ’ s Office to the Star Tribune .
He has since been demoted .
Formal charges filed Friday night are expected to automatically trigger a state investigation .
It would mark the second Department of Human Rights racism probe into a law enforcement agency in recent weeks .
The agency launched a sweeping inquiry into the Minneapolis Police Department after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will examine MPD policies and procedures over the past 10 years to determine whether the department has engaged in discriminatory practices .
I ’ d fall on the absurd line on this question , even without the fact that the corrections facility repeatedly lied about the situation .
The superintendent deliberately cleared Chauvin ’ s area of any officers of color , a point he now admits , so it clearly indicated that he thought there would be some sort of problem with them .
If the issue was sensitivity , wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Lydon ’ s explanation looks condescending as hell even if one is inclined to credit it at all .
The complaint at least suggests this is as bad as it had gotten within the Ramsey County jail .
Thank the Lord for small favors , I guess , but it might have created more of a danger than it purported to solve : “ My fellow officers of color and I were , and continue to be , deeply humiliated , distressed , and negatively impacted by the segregation order , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The order and Ramsey County ’ s failure to adequately address it have caused a hostile work environment for officers of color at Ramsey County Correctional Facility — Adult Detention Unit.
” Another minority officer , who described herself as Hispanic , said she and other officers of color were reassigned to the third floor of the jail once Chauvin was brought to the fifth floor of the facility , and that they were instructed to remain there even when an all-hands emergency response was called .
“ When we arrived on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facility ’ s employees of color were all on that floor , and that we had been segregated from the 5th floor , ” the Hispanic officer said in a statement contained in the complaint .
“ During the same afternoon , an ‘ A-Team Response ’ was called , which normally means there is an emergency and correctional officers are to drop what they are doing in order to assist the affected inmate and help transport the inmate to the 5th floor .
Several officers of color responded to the call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inmate to the 5th floor due to the order to segregate.
” If that can be established , Ramsey County and the state of Minnesota had better start putting some money away for the eventual settlement .
The irony in this is that no one has yet established a clear racial animus behind Chauvin ’ s actions in the Floyd killing .
It might exist , and perhaps it ’ s more likely than not , but as of yet there hasn ’ t been any specific evidence of it .
The two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nightclub , and there has been some contradictory testimony as to whether they had been in conflict .
This might be more of a personal issue than a racial issue , something we likely won ’ t know fully until trial .
It ’ s possible that Lydon ’ s actions may demonstrate more of a racial animus than Chauvin ’ s will in the end , although I wouldn ’ t bet either way on that question yet .

And the hits just keep a-comin’. As if Minnesota law enforcement didn’t already have its hands full of racial-bias issues in the wake of the George Floyd homicide, the detention of the man who knelt on his neck may have provoked another round. According to eight corrections officers, the Ramsey County jail holding Derek Chauvin segregated officers of color off his floor in his May 29 booking and entry into the facility, prompting them to file a discrimination complaint with the state.
Is this a case of racial animus, or sensitivity run amok? KARE-11 reports the superintendent claims the latter, but the attorney representing the clients called that “absurd”:
As Chauvin arrived, all officers of color were ordered to a separate floor, and a supervisor told one of them that, because of their race, they would be a potential “liability” around Chauvin, according a copy of racial discrimination charges obtained by the Star Tribune. “I understood that the decision to segregate us had been made because we could not be trusted to carry out our work responsibilities professionally around the high-profile inmate — solely because of the color of our skin,” wrote one acting sergeant, who is black. “I am not aware of a similar situation where white officers were segregated from an inmate.” … In explaining his actions, jail Superintendent Steve Lydon later told superiors that he was informed Chauvin would be arriving in 10 minutes, and made a call “to protect and support” minority employees by shielding them from Chauvin. “Out of care and concern, and without the comfort of time, I made a decision to limit exposure to employees of color to a murder suspect who could potentially aggravate those feelings,” Lydon reportedly said in a statement given during an internal investigation and provided by the Sheriff’s Office to the Star Tribune. He has since been demoted. Formal charges filed Friday night are expected to automatically trigger a state investigation. It would mark the second Department of Human Rights racism probe into a law enforcement agency in recent weeks. The agency launched a sweeping inquiry into the Minneapolis Police Department after Floyd’s death. That investigation will examine MPD policies and procedures over the past 10 years to determine whether the department has engaged in discriminatory practices.
I’d fall on the absurd line on this question, even without the fact that the corrections facility repeatedly lied about the situation. The superintendent deliberately cleared Chauvin’s area of any officers of color, a point he now admits, so it clearly indicated that he thought there would be some sort of problem with them. If the issue was sensitivity, wouldn’t he have just asked them first? Lydon’s explanation looks condescending as hell even if one is inclined to credit it at all.
The complaint at least suggests this is as bad as it had gotten within the Ramsey County jail. Thank the Lord for small favors, I guess, but it might have created more of a danger than it purported to solve:
“My fellow officers of color and I were, and continue to be, deeply humiliated, distressed, and negatively impacted by the segregation order,” the officer wrote in the complaint. “The order and Ramsey County’s failure to adequately address it have caused a hostile work environment for officers of color at Ramsey County Correctional Facility — Adult Detention Unit.” Another minority officer, who described herself as Hispanic, said she and other officers of color were reassigned to the third floor of the jail once Chauvin was brought to the fifth floor of the facility, and that they were instructed to remain there even when an all-hands emergency response was called. “When we arrived on the 3rd floor, we realized that the facility’s employees of color were all on that floor, and that we had been segregated from the 5th floor,” the Hispanic officer said in a statement contained in the complaint. “During the same afternoon, an ‘A-Team Response’ was called, which normally means there is an emergency and correctional officers are to drop what they are doing in order to assist the affected inmate and help transport the inmate to the 5th floor. Several officers of color responded to the call, but were prohibited from taking the inmate to the 5th floor due to the order to segregate.”
If that can be established, Ramsey County and the state of Minnesota had better start putting some money away for the eventual settlement.
The irony in this is that no one has yet established a clear racial animus behind Chauvin’s actions in the Floyd killing. It might exist, and perhaps it’s more likely than not, but as of yet there hasn’t been any specific evidence of it. The two had crossed paths before as employees at a nightclub, and there has been some contradictory testimony as to whether they had been in conflict. This might be more of a personal issue than a racial issue, something we likely won’t know fully until trial. It’s possible that Lydon’s actions may demonstrate more of a racial animus than Chauvin’s will in the end, although I wouldn’t bet either way on that question yet.


hotair--2020-06-22--Chicago weekend: 104 shot, 14 killed including 5 children

Earlier this month I wrote about the deadliest day of violence in Chicago ’ s history , at least since records were kept starting in 1961 .
On Sunday May 31 , 18 people were killed in the city .
That capped a weekend in which 85 people were shot , 24 of whom died .
While Chicago didn ’ t see as many deaths over Father ’ s Day weekend , there were actually more people shot this weekend .
Chicago saw its highest number of gun violence victims in a single weekend this year with 104 people shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday morning , 14 of them fatally .
Five of those killed were minors .
The weekend saw more shooting victims but less fatalities than the last weekend of May , when 85 people were shot , 24 of them fatally — Chicago ’ s most deadly weekend in years .
Tragically , five of the 14 people killed this weekend were minors .
Two boys , 15 and 16 , were walking in an alley at 12:18 a.m. in the 4700 block of West Superior Street when someone fired at them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Chicago police .
The 15-year-old was shot in his leg , chest and abdomen .
He was taken to Stroger Hospital and pronounced dead .
The other boy , 16 , was hit in the ankle and also taken to Stroger .
He was in fair condition .
Saturday night , a 13-year-old girl was killed and two other teens were wounded in Austin on the West Side .
The girl was inside a home about 8:30 p.m. in the 1000 block of North LeClaire Avenue when the shots were fired , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , police said .
Amaria J. Jones was taken to Stroger , where she was pronounced dead , authorities said .
The person who killed Jones was shooting at two teen boys who were sitting outside on a porch .
Both were hit but survived .
The Chicago Sun-Times spoke to Jones ’ aunt who lost her own son less than a year ago : Amaria ’ s death marks the second shooting death in her family in less than nine months .
Her cousin , Derrick Burns , was gunned down in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cicero , less than a mile from where she was killed .
He was just 20 .
Burns ’ mother , Takemia Jones , said the family is reeling again after the death of her young niece , who recently completed seventh grade at John Hay Community Academy and was described as a sweet girl who “ loved to dance ” and play basketball .
Takemia Jones lived in the same building with her niece and was home Saturday night , though she initially thought the gunfire was merely firecrackers .
Now instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job , she ’ s waiting to attend her funeral .
“ I feel sad and hurt , ” she said .
“ I feel powerless , and I feel there should be more police on the street.
” More police on the street is a narrative you don ’ t see in the media much these days .
Unfortunately , Amaria Jones was not the youngest victim this weekend .
A 3-year-old toddler named Mekay James was shot in the back while riding in the car with his step-father , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted about the shooting .
Rev .
Ira Acree made a point about the shooting of James : Police superintendent David Brown said the city needed to “ keep violent offenders in jail longer.
” Police said the only thing the acts of violence over the weekend all have in common are “ gangs , guns , and drugs.
” But the visibly frustrated Supt .
Brown repeatedly emphasized violent offenders not being in jail and the failure of home monitoring .
“ I ’ ve been here eight weeks , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on home monitor , ” Brown said .
“ That ’ s shocking to me.
” He added : “ I got here thinking , oh we need leadership , maybe cops need better work ethic or strategy — it ’ s none of that Cops are working hard .
We ’ re just chasing our tails.
” Brown refused to specify what he was talking about but because of a COVID-19 outbreak a judge ordered a reduction in crowding back in March : In Chicago , the Cook County Jail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has become a hot spot for coronavirus .
A correctional officer who worked in the jail and six detainees have died after testing positive from coronavirus .
To slow the spread of the virus in the jail , a Cook County judge in March ordered bail reduction hearings to bring down the population by releasing detainees not considered a threat .
As a result , since March the jail ’ s population has dropped by roughly 1,600 to just over 4,000 detainees as of May 5 , according to data available on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So while we have Black Lives Matter protesters in the Seattle autonomous zone asking for defunding police and getting rid of the court system , Chicago is living through a situation where there arguably aren ’ t enough police and even when they do arrest people they can ’ t be kept in jail or monitored properly .
Will anyone in the national media make the connection between what protesters say they want and what it might look like if they were to get it ?

Earlier this month I wrote about the deadliest day of violence in Chicago’s history, at least since records were kept starting in 1961. On Sunday May 31, 18 people were killed in the city. That capped a weekend in which 85 people were shot, 24 of whom died. While Chicago didn’t see as many deaths over Father’s Day weekend, there were actually more people shot this weekend.
Chicago saw its highest number of gun violence victims in a single weekend this year with 104 people shot across the city from Friday evening to Monday morning, 14 of them fatally. Five of those killed were minors. The weekend saw more shooting victims but less fatalities than the last weekend of May, when 85 people were shot, 24 of them fatally — Chicago’s most deadly weekend in years.
Tragically, five of the 14 people killed this weekend were minors.
Two boys, 15 and 16, were walking in an alley at 12:18 a.m. in the 4700 block of West Superior Street when someone fired at them, possibly from a gray sedan, according to Chicago police. The 15-year-old was shot in his leg, chest and abdomen. He was taken to Stroger Hospital and pronounced dead. The other boy, 16, was hit in the ankle and also taken to Stroger. He was in fair condition. Saturday night, a 13-year-old girl was killed and two other teens were wounded in Austin on the West Side. The girl was inside a home about 8:30 p.m. in the 1000 block of North LeClaire Avenue when the shots were fired, and she was struck in the neck, police said. Amaria J. Jones was taken to Stroger, where she was pronounced dead, authorities said.
The person who killed Jones was shooting at two teen boys who were sitting outside on a porch. Both were hit but survived. The Chicago Sun-Times spoke to Jones’ aunt who lost her own son less than a year ago:
Amaria’s death marks the second shooting death in her family in less than nine months. Her cousin, Derrick Burns, was gunned down in September in the 700 block of North Cicero, less than a mile from where she was killed. He was just 20. Burns’ mother, Takemia Jones, said the family is reeling again after the death of her young niece, who recently completed seventh grade at John Hay Community Academy and was described as a sweet girl who “loved to dance” and play basketball. Takemia Jones lived in the same building with her niece and was home Saturday night, though she initially thought the gunfire was merely firecrackers. Now instead of helping Jones hunt for a summer job, she’s waiting to attend her funeral. “I feel sad and hurt,” she said. “I feel powerless, and I feel there should be more police on the street.”
More police on the street is a narrative you don’t see in the media much these days. Unfortunately, Amaria Jones was not the youngest victim this weekend. A 3-year-old toddler named Mekay James was shot in the back while riding in the car with his step-father, who was the intended victim. Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted about the shooting.
Our city's collective heart breaks to hear the unfathomable news of a 3-year-old boy who was shot and killed tonight on Chicago's West Side. There are simply no words to describe such a heinous, unconscionable act of cowardice to shoot at a toddler. — Mayor Lori Lightfoot (@chicagosmayor) June 21, 2020
I ask that anyone with information on this incident please come forward or submit a tip anonymously at https://t.co/Tt6O9g49ZD. — Mayor Lori Lightfoot (@chicagosmayor) June 21, 2020
Rev. Ira Acree made a point about the shooting of James:
“A 3-year-old was gunned down,” he said. “A line was crossed.” Acree also raised issues of social justice. “It would be an ultimate contradiction to march for justice for George Floyd and not say a word about a 3-year-old who can’t defend himself or speak for himself,” he said. “Don’t miss the point. we say Black lives matter. Black babies’ lives matter more.”
Police superintendent David Brown said the city needed to “keep violent offenders in jail longer.”
Police said the only thing the acts of violence over the weekend all have in common are “gangs, guns, and drugs.” But the visibly frustrated Supt. Brown repeatedly emphasized violent offenders not being in jail and the failure of home monitoring. “I’ve been here eight weeks, and it’s shocking that no one monitors people on home monitor,” Brown said. “That’s shocking to me.” He added: “I got here thinking, oh we need leadership, maybe cops need better work ethic or strategy — it’s none of that Cops are working hard. We’re just chasing our tails.”
Brown refused to specify what he was talking about but because of a COVID-19 outbreak a judge ordered a reduction in crowding back in March:
In Chicago, the Cook County Jail, one of the nation’s largest, has become a hot spot for coronavirus. A correctional officer who worked in the jail and six detainees have died after testing positive from coronavirus. To slow the spread of the virus in the jail, a Cook County judge in March ordered bail reduction hearings to bring down the population by releasing detainees not considered a threat. As a result, since March the jail’s population has dropped by roughly 1,600 to just over 4,000 detainees as of May 5, according to data available on the Cook County Sheriff’s website.
So while we have Black Lives Matter protesters in the Seattle autonomous zone asking for defunding police and getting rid of the court system, Chicago is living through a situation where there arguably aren’t enough police and even when they do arrest people they can’t be kept in jail or monitored properly. Will anyone in the national media make the connection between what protesters say they want and what it might look like if they were to get it?
Here’s a local report from CBS2 Chicago:


hotair--2020-06-22--What happens when the police say "enough is enough?"

As we ’ ve discussed here previously , while there are probably areas where standard law enforcement training and best practices would benefit from some reform efforts , what ’ s really rolling out across the country right now is something different .
Whether it ’ s coming from protesters or rioters in the streets or ( primarily Democratic ) elected officials , we ’ re seeing a trend towards blaming the police for many of society ’ s ills .
And don ’ t think for a moment that the rank and file police officers around the country haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Free Beacon , the editors posed a chilling question this weekend that ’ s looking less and less hypothetical by the week .
What happens when the cops have had enough ?
They start out reminding us of the details of ( former ) Police Officer Garrett Rolfe ’ s killing of Rayshard Brooks and the panicked response from the Democratic district attorney , who slapped Rolfe with a felony murder charge before the Georgia Bureau of Investigation could even finish looking into the matter .
This led to a case of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called out sick in protest of the process .
But what happens if this spreads further around the country ?
That hurts cops , like the Chicago officer who allowed herself to be beaten to the point of hospitalization rather than draw her weapon because , the police chief said , “ she didn ’ t want her family or the department to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news.
” When doing your job can lead to a death sentence , when you can ’ t fight back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public recrimination , when prominent politicians want to punitively slash your funding—wouldn ’ t you walk too ?
Many may not be able to do so in the current economy , but expect to see the cumulative impact of this approach when it bounces back .
Continuing down the path Democratic politicians are choosing will , inevitably , be the undoing of America ’ s hard-won crime decline .
Decades of research tell us so—just this month , two Harvard professors found that investigations of departments sparked by “ viral ” shootings suppressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added homicides and 34,000 felonies .
That ’ s a bloody fact .
If it becomes a national reality , we will have only those who now demagogue on hatred of the police to blame .
The handling of the shooting of Rayshard Brooks is something I wrote about shortly after it happens and I was attempting to sound the alarm about the same questions the editors at the Free Beacon are raising .
There are significant differences between what happened with Brooks and , for example , the killing of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slager shooting of Walter Scott in 2016 .
While a full investigation is certainly warranted , there were numerous facts that would likely prove this to be a case of potentially poor judgment on the officer ’ s part at most , as compared to a racist , deliberate attempt at assassinating someone .
And the idea that the prosecutor could bring home a conviction on felony murder with all of that video available seems preposterous .
Rolfe was thrown out as a sacrifice to the mob in the hopes of suppressing further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will probably be lucky to even get a lower-grade manslaughter conviction , particularly when the jury sees that Brooks fired a taser at the police and are informed that Georgia considers it a deadly weapon .
( Something I didn ’ t know when I first wrote about this story . )
The larger issue that the Free Beacon is dealing with is the blowback from all the rest of the police who are out there doing their jobs as best they can under difficult and frequently dangerous conditions .
If Rolfe can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least the benefit of a full investigation , why should the rest of the police expect to be treated any differently if they are caught in a split-second life and death situation ?
For the moment , the “ blue flu ” seems to have been mostly confined to Atlanta , but that situation may not hold forever .
Being a cop doesn ’ t pay that much , particularly when you consider the risks that come with that line of work .
If the good cops start quitting you ’ ll only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the least to begin with .
And when you can ’ t hire enough good cops to cover all of the assigned beats , the doors are open for a return to the bad old days of the 80s and 90s with staggering murder rates and increasing property crimes .
Oh , and you ’ ll need to round up some volunteers to handle all of the riots since they probably won ’ t slow down all that much either .
We still come across some bad cops every once in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation are comprised of human beings , so that ’ s inevitable .
And when they are identified , they must be dealt with swiftly and transparently to encourage trust from the public .
But scapegoating all of the cops to answer some “ moment ” in social unrest is a self-defeating proposition .

As we’ve discussed here previously, while there are probably areas where standard law enforcement training and best practices would benefit from some reform efforts, what’s really rolling out across the country right now is something different. Whether it’s coming from protesters or rioters in the streets or (primarily Democratic) elected officials, we’re seeing a trend towards blaming the police for many of society’s ills. And don’t think for a moment that the rank and file police officers around the country haven’t noticed.
Over at the Free Beacon, the editors posed a chilling question this weekend that’s looking less and less hypothetical by the week. What happens when the cops have had enough? They start out reminding us of the details of (former) Police Officer Garrett Rolfe’s killing of Rayshard Brooks and the panicked response from the Democratic district attorney, who slapped Rolfe with a felony murder charge before the Georgia Bureau of Investigation could even finish looking into the matter. This led to a case of the “blue flu” as Atlanta cops called out sick in protest of the process. But what happens if this spreads further around the country?
That hurts cops, like the Chicago officer who allowed herself to be beaten to the point of hospitalization rather than draw her weapon because, the police chief said, “she didn’t want her family or the department to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news.” When doing your job can lead to a death sentence, when you can’t fight back against a brutal beating for fear of public recrimination, when prominent politicians want to punitively slash your funding—wouldn’t you walk too? Many may not be able to do so in the current economy, but expect to see the cumulative impact of this approach when it bounces back. Continuing down the path Democratic politicians are choosing will, inevitably, be the undoing of America’s hard-won crime decline. Decades of research tell us so—just this month, two Harvard professors found that investigations of departments sparked by “viral” shootings suppressed police activity, leading to almost 900 added homicides and 34,000 felonies. That’s a bloody fact. If it becomes a national reality, we will have only those who now demagogue on hatred of the police to blame.
The handling of the shooting of Rayshard Brooks is something I wrote about shortly after it happens and I was attempting to sound the alarm about the same questions the editors at the Free Beacon are raising. There are significant differences between what happened with Brooks and, for example, the killing of George Floyd. Or even worse, the Michael Slager shooting of Walter Scott in 2016. While a full investigation is certainly warranted, there were numerous facts that would likely prove this to be a case of potentially poor judgment on the officer’s part at most, as compared to a racist, deliberate attempt at assassinating someone.
And the idea that the prosecutor could bring home a conviction on felony murder with all of that video available seems preposterous. Rolfe was thrown out as a sacrifice to the mob in the hopes of suppressing further demonstrations and/or riots. Honestly, they will probably be lucky to even get a lower-grade manslaughter conviction, particularly when the jury sees that Brooks fired a taser at the police and are informed that Georgia considers it a deadly weapon. (Something I didn’t know when I first wrote about this story.)
The larger issue that the Free Beacon is dealing with is the blowback from all the rest of the police who are out there doing their jobs as best they can under difficult and frequently dangerous conditions. If Rolfe can be thrown to the wolves without at least the benefit of a full investigation, why should the rest of the police expect to be treated any differently if they are caught in a split-second life and death situation? For the moment, the “blue flu” seems to have been mostly confined to Atlanta, but that situation may not hold forever. Being a cop doesn’t pay that much, particularly when you consider the risks that come with that line of work.
If the good cops start quitting you’ll only be left with the ones you probably like the least to begin with. And when you can’t hire enough good cops to cover all of the assigned beats, the doors are open for a return to the bad old days of the 80s and 90s with staggering murder rates and increasing property crimes. Oh, and you’ll need to round up some volunteers to handle all of the riots since they probably won’t slow down all that much either.
We still come across some bad cops every once in a while. The police forces of our nation are comprised of human beings, so that’s inevitable. And when they are identified, they must be dealt with swiftly and transparently to encourage trust from the public. But scapegoating all of the cops to answer some “moment” in social unrest is a self-defeating proposition.


hotair--2020-06-22--Knives out: Jared and Ivanka reportedly mad at Brad Parscale for Trump's rally fiasco

Axios reporter Jonathan Swan predicted “ recriminations ” in the hours after the rally ended on Saturday night .
Here they come .
That ’ s a nice try by Team Parscale to pass the buck but it ’ s not just the poor attendance that irked Trump and his inner circle .
If you believe CNN , Jared and Ivanka are angry at Parscale for hyping the event relentlessly in the days beforehand , making the disappointing turnout that much newsier afterward .
“ Jared and Ivanka are pissed at Brad over promising on crowd size , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said blame from this camp has focused squarely on Parscale , of whom some had already been skeptical .
But some donors and allies feel the rally debacle — in which the campaign made a decision to inflate expectations about enthusiasm for the rally rather than manage them at a reasonable level — threw into sharp relief the existing management problems on the campaign , the person said .
“ What happened last night is representative of a much bigger problem , ” the person noted… Parscale is facing a “ decline of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inner circle , [ a campaign ] adviser added .
Jared and Ivanka deny that they ’ re mad , naturally .
One smart point I saw a couple of Trump fans make yesterday on social media was that if Parscale and his team badly overestimated the turnout based on their analysis of online RSVPs , it necessarily means that something ’ s wrong with their data operation — which does suggest “ a much bigger problem ” within the campaign .
Politico claims that 1.1 million people registered online to attend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter registration histories and concluded that 300,000 or so — the TikTok teens , possibly — were fakes .
Of the remaining 800,000 , they identified between 200,000 and 300,000 who live within driving distance of Tulsa and might conceivably make the trip .
“ Worst-case scenario , they concluded , was an audience of about 60,000.
” They overestimated by a factor of 10 , with the Tulsa fire department estimating the crowd onhand at roughly 6,200 people .
The Times claims there was a feeling of “ horror ” among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out at the empty seats backstage before the rally .
“ The president , who had been warned aboard Air Force One that the crowds at the arena were smaller than expected , was stunned , and he yelled at aides backstage while looking at the endless rows of empty blue seats in the upper bowl of the stadium , according to four people familiar with what took place , ” the paper reports , adding that several White House advisors ( like Jared and Ivanka , maybe ? )
called the rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Guess who .
“ The president has diminishing confidence in Brad , ” a former adviser said of Parscale , who served as the campaign ’ s digital director in 2016… According to the former adviser , Trump , who is “ getting madder by the day , ” has recently made dismissive comments about Parscale ’ s experience .
Prior to working for Trump , Parscale worked at a web design and marketing company he founded in San Antonio .
He was named campaign manager of the president ’ s reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been in the room when Trump refers to him as ‘ the website guy.
’ … And that ’ s not that long ago .
It ’ s a problem for Brad , ” the former campaign adviser said .
Parscale reportedly has powerful allies in Trump ’ s inner circle , from Lara Trump to Kimberly Guilfoyle to Kushner himself , although maybe that alliance is fraying given the quotes above .
One unintended benefit for Trump from the attendance debacle was that it drew media coverage away from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podium was terrible , even more unfocused than usual .
He himself rated his performance as merely “ average ” about halfway through but it was worse than that .
The most memorable passage was Trump revisiting — at great length — his strange tentativeness in descending a ramp at West Point ’ s commencement a few weeks ago .
The most memorable soundbite was one that Democrats will use against him in attack ads , whether it was intended as a joke or not : “ Current and former officials say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president was just joking is difficult to believe in part because Trump has made similar comments in the past , ” the Daily Beast reported today .
One state health official told the website that “ I always feared this was what was happening… [ H ] is speech last night really made it seem like maybe this is the reason why they were slow to get us the resources we needed to do the testing.
” A Democratic congressman has vowed to “ pursue answers ” about whether Trump deliberately held back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” look worse .
The president ’ s most basic task in his first rally after the COVID crisis began was to not hurt himself .
He failed .
But he failed in his other task too , which was to help himself by putting Democrats on defense .
Peter Spiliakos writes , “ Trump could have spent fifteen minutes explaining how a Democratic governor killed thousands of elderly people as the news media cheered .
But he doesn ’ t care about that .
So he spent that time on his West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furious that he was so scattershot for a rally which he had weeks to prepare for and which was destined to be covered even more heavily by the media than his rallies usually are .
This was effectively the kickoff of his reelection campaign ; it should have been 90 percent attacks on Democrats , starting with Biden but extending to Cuomo , Pelosi , left-wing vandals who are tearing down statues , and so on .
He ’ s always treated his rallies as one part photo op and one part therapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand something more focused at this stage of the election .
There are just four months left , he ’ s down big in the polls , and he ’ s constantly in a defensive crouch .
Tulsa was his chance to turn it around , but instead the headline is “ MAGA FANS AWOL ” — which is probably a marginally better headline than “ TRUMP RAMBLES FOR NEARLY TWO HOURS.
” He was so disjointed that he ended up babbling about prison time for flag-burners at one point .
Get in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the next rallies will be held in open-air spaces like airport hangars .
That ’ s a good idea that should give fans nervous about the coronavirus more confidence in attending , but it ’ s pointless to hold more if he ’ s just going to riff the whole time .
Come in with a message and hammer at it .
As an exit quotation , here he is being asked if he was joking about testing on Saturday and giving an answer that veers around to him saying “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job.
” More attack-ad material .

Axios reporter Jonathan Swan predicted “recriminations” in the hours after the rally ended on Saturday night. Here they come.
When asked about the Tulsa rally fiasco, sources close to the Trump campaign are quick to point out that campaign COO Michael Glassner is responsible for rally planning and logistics, not Brad Parscale. — Jonathan Easley (@JonEasley) June 22, 2020
That’s a nice try by Team Parscale to pass the buck but it’s not just the poor attendance that irked Trump and his inner circle. If you believe CNN, Jared and Ivanka are angry at Parscale for hyping the event relentlessly in the days beforehand, making the disappointing turnout that much newsier afterward.
“Jared and Ivanka are pissed at Brad over promising on crowd size,” the source said… [A second] person said blame from this camp has focused squarely on Parscale, of whom some had already been skeptical. But some donors and allies feel the rally debacle — in which the campaign made a decision to inflate expectations about enthusiasm for the rally rather than manage them at a reasonable level — threw into sharp relief the existing management problems on the campaign, the person said. “What happened last night is representative of a much bigger problem,” the person noted… Parscale is facing a “decline of confidence,” from Trump’s inner circle, [a campaign] adviser added.
Jared and Ivanka deny that they’re mad, naturally. One smart point I saw a couple of Trump fans make yesterday on social media was that if Parscale and his team badly overestimated the turnout based on their analysis of online RSVPs, it necessarily means that something’s wrong with their data operation — which does suggest “a much bigger problem” within the campaign. Politico claims that 1.1 million people registered online to attend the rally but that the campaign looked at voter registration histories and concluded that 300,000 or so — the TikTok teens, possibly — were fakes. Of the remaining 800,000, they identified between 200,000 and 300,000 who live within driving distance of Tulsa and might conceivably make the trip. “Worst-case scenario, they concluded, was an audience of about 60,000.”
They overestimated by a factor of 10, with the Tulsa fire department estimating the crowd onhand at roughly 6,200 people. The Times claims there was a feeling of “horror” among the president and his staff as they gazed out at the empty seats backstage before the rally. “The president, who had been warned aboard Air Force One that the crowds at the arena were smaller than expected, was stunned, and he yelled at aides backstage while looking at the endless rows of empty blue seats in the upper bowl of the stadium, according to four people familiar with what took place,” the paper reports, adding that several White House advisors (like Jared and Ivanka, maybe?) called the rally a “disaster.”
Someone must pay. Guess who.
“The president has diminishing confidence in Brad,” a former adviser said of Parscale, who served as the campaign’s digital director in 2016… According to the former adviser, Trump, who is “getting madder by the day,” has recently made dismissive comments about Parscale’s experience. Prior to working for Trump, Parscale worked at a web design and marketing company he founded in San Antonio. He was named campaign manager of the president’s reelection bid in early 2018. “I’ve been in the room when Trump refers to him as ‘the website guy.’ … And that’s not that long ago. It’s a problem for Brad,” the former campaign adviser said.
Parscale reportedly has powerful allies in Trump’s inner circle, from Lara Trump to Kimberly Guilfoyle to Kushner himself, although maybe that alliance is fraying given the quotes above.
One unintended benefit for Trump from the attendance debacle was that it drew media coverage away from the fact that his own performance at the podium was terrible, even more unfocused than usual. He himself rated his performance as merely “average” about halfway through but it was worse than that. The most memorable passage was Trump revisiting — at great length — his strange tentativeness in descending a ramp at West Point’s commencement a few weeks ago. The most memorable soundbite was one that Democrats will use against him in attack ads, whether it was intended as a joke or not:
Trump: When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people. You’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down please. pic.twitter.com/RalPJeVH0F — Acyn (@Acyn) June 21, 2020
“Current and former officials say the White House’s insistence that the president was just joking is difficult to believe in part because Trump has made similar comments in the past,” the Daily Beast reported today. One state health official told the website that “I always feared this was what was happening… [H]is speech last night really made it seem like maybe this is the reason why they were slow to get us the resources we needed to do the testing.” A Democratic congressman has vowed to “pursue answers” about whether Trump deliberately held back testing because it made the “numbers” look worse. The president’s most basic task in his first rally after the COVID crisis began was to not hurt himself. He failed.
But he failed in his other task too, which was to help himself by putting Democrats on defense. Peter Spiliakos writes, “Trump could have spent fifteen minutes explaining how a Democratic governor killed thousands of elderly people as the news media cheered. But he doesn’t care about that. So he spent that time on his West Point speech.” Trump fans should be furious that he was so scattershot for a rally which he had weeks to prepare for and which was destined to be covered even more heavily by the media than his rallies usually are. This was effectively the kickoff of his reelection campaign; it should have been 90 percent attacks on Democrats, starting with Biden but extending to Cuomo, Pelosi, left-wing vandals who are tearing down statues, and so on. He’s always treated his rallies as one part photo op and one part therapy session but Republicans had every right to demand something more focused at this stage of the election. There are just four months left, he’s down big in the polls, and he’s constantly in a defensive crouch. Tulsa was his chance to turn it around, but instead the headline is “MAGA FANS AWOL” — which is probably a marginally better headline than “TRUMP RAMBLES FOR NEARLY TWO HOURS.” He was so disjointed that he ended up babbling about prison time for flag-burners at one point. Get in the game.
There are reports today that the next rallies will be held in open-air spaces like airport hangars. That’s a good idea that should give fans nervous about the coronavirus more confidence in attending, but it’s pointless to hold more if he’s just going to riff the whole time. Come in with a message and hammer at it. As an exit quotation, here he is being asked if he was joking about testing on Saturday and giving an answer that veers around to him saying “We’ve done too good of a job.” More attack-ad material.


hotair--2020-06-22--What really happened with the first shooting inside CHAZ/CHOP?

Jazz wrote about the latest shooting at the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest , but there is some additional information about the first shooting that took place Saturday morning which deserves a look .
The incident started early Saturday morning around 2:15 am .
Multiple shots were fired by an unknown individual and two people were hit .
Police arrived at CHAZ/CHOP at 2:30 am to look for the victims .
Protesters claimed the victims had already been transported to the hospital .
But according to the Seattle Times that wasn ’ t true .
Protesters can be heard yelling at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down !
” The protesters also shout to the officers that the victims have already been taken away .
It would later turn out that one victim had been transported out by volunteer medics but another would be found later… A timeline prepared by the fire department from dispatch information indicates the initial call came in at 2:19 a.m. and that the 19-year-old victim was at the hospital in a private vehicle by 2:42 .
The second gunshot victim was not located until 2:51 a.m.
Here ’ s a video released by police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This next video allegedly shows a street fight that preceded the shooting .
Notice that faces have been blurred to prevent identifying anyone .
I wonder if the person who shot this brawl has video of the shooting as well .
This next clip shows locals trying to get the most seriously injured man to the hospital .
The timestamp on the video says 3:30 but that can ’ t be right if the victim was at the hospital by 2:42 am .
CHAZ/CHOP security person Raz Simone blamed the death on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without police backup .
Maybe if this guy hadn ’ t help set up a cop-free zone in the middle of the city , this wouldn ’ t have happened .
Really , it ’ s incredible that they set up an autonomous zone and chased the authorities out but the moment someone is shot , it ’ s the authorities ’ fault for not helping quickly enough .
The 19-year-old was apparently DOA at the hospital .
The brother of the victim was upset that CHAZ/CHOP medics didn ’ t tell him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points to a table outside a restaurant which he says is covered with his brother ’ s blood .
Finally , socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant released a statement about the shooting which said it was a “ right-wing attack.
” Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the black protester who was tragically killed this morning by gunfire at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest ( CHOP ) .
Socialist Alternative and I stand in solidarity with the family and friends of the victim , and with the injured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as with all community members and fellow activists .
Though we await confirmation of the details of the killing , there are indications that this may have been a right-wing attack… If this killing turns out to be a right-wing attack , President Trump bears direct responsibility , since he has fomented reactionary hatred specifically against the peaceful Capitol Hill occupation , and even threatened to intervene with federal troops .
Also responsible are the conservative and corporate media outlets , both locally and nationally , which have themselves whipped up right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peaceful protest occupation , and who are continuing to do so even now , claiming that this shooting proves the CHOP is descending into chaos .
Again , police haven ’ t arrested anyone at this point and apparently don ’ t even have a suspect .
Where is Sawant getting this information ?
She doesn ’ t say .
She released this statement after the first shooting ( one killed , one injured ) but before the second shooting .
As for misrepresenting the peaceful protest , you should read Andy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days inside CHAZ/CHOP .
In addition to the shootings there has been one arrest for sexual assault and another for arson .
This left-wing utopia is going about as well as expected .

Jazz wrote about the latest shooting at the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, but there is some additional information about the first shooting that took place Saturday morning which deserves a look. The incident started early Saturday morning around 2:15 am. Multiple shots were fired by an unknown individual and two people were hit. Police arrived at CHAZ/CHOP at 2:30 am to look for the victims. Protesters claimed the victims had already been transported to the hospital. But according to the Seattle Times that wasn’t true.
Protesters can be heard yelling at the officers to “put your guns down!” The protesters also shout to the officers that the victims have already been taken away. It would later turn out that one victim had been transported out by volunteer medics but another would be found later… A timeline prepared by the fire department from dispatch information indicates the initial call came in at 2:19 a.m. and that the 19-year-old victim was at the hospital in a private vehicle by 2:42. The second gunshot victim was not located until 2:51 a.m.
Here’s a video released by police showing their attempts to find the victims.
This next video allegedly shows a street fight that preceded the shooting. Notice that faces have been blurred to prevent identifying anyone. I wonder if the person who shot this brawl has video of the shooting as well.
Video of the fight leading up to the 10th and Pike shooting that happened at 2:18 am #CHOP pic.twitter.com/meBfrfWh7R — max curtis (@MaxGeopolitics) June 21, 2020
This next clip shows locals trying to get the most seriously injured man to the hospital. The timestamp on the video says 3:30 but that can’t be right if the victim was at the hospital by 2:42 am.
Video from someone on the ground last night at #CHOP. Footage of the street medics evacuating the 19yo victim to the hospital (assuming it is them because of the CPR) as an ambulance circles the block uselessly. Very heartbreaking. Rest in peace. pic.twitter.com/fyzd4nET6e — max curtis (@MaxGeopolitics) June 20, 2020
CHAZ/CHOP security person Raz Simone blamed the death on paramedics for failing to enter the zone without police backup. Maybe if this guy hadn’t help set up a cop-free zone in the middle of the city, this wouldn’t have happened. Really, it’s incredible that they set up an autonomous zone and chased the authorities out but the moment someone is shot, it’s the authorities’ fault for not helping quickly enough.
Medics refused to help even after people in the CHOP begged. They let our bro bleed out for 30 minutes till he died. Fuck politics. Fuck your currupt system. pic.twitter.com/PMwxU9yEzd — Raz Simone (@RazSimone) June 21, 2020
The 19-year-old was apparently DOA at the hospital. The brother of the victim was upset that CHAZ/CHOP medics didn’t tell him the truth about what happened. He points to a table outside a restaurant which he says is covered with his brother’s blood.
“The table is covered in blood.” The brother of man who died at CHAZ describes what he witnessed when he arrived at the scene. CHAZ “street medics” gave wannabe treatment at the Ranchos Tacos Restaurant they’ve been occupying as command center. https://t.co/O4Vf3xTrQw — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 22, 2020
Finally, socialist City Council member Kshama Sawant released a statement about the shooting which said it was a “right-wing attack.”
Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the black protester who was tragically killed this morning by gunfire at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Socialist Alternative and I stand in solidarity with the family and friends of the victim, and with the injured protester now in the hospital, as well as with all community members and fellow activists. Though we await confirmation of the details of the killing, there are indications that this may have been a right-wing attack… If this killing turns out to be a right-wing attack, President Trump bears direct responsibility, since he has fomented reactionary hatred specifically against the peaceful Capitol Hill occupation, and even threatened to intervene with federal troops. Also responsible are the conservative and corporate media outlets, both locally and nationally, which have themselves whipped up right-wing hate by completely misrepresenting the nature of the peaceful protest occupation, and who are continuing to do so even now, claiming that this shooting proves the CHOP is descending into chaos.
Again, police haven’t arrested anyone at this point and apparently don’t even have a suspect. Where is Sawant getting this information? She doesn’t say. She released this statement after the first shooting (one killed, one injured) but before the second shooting.
As for misrepresenting the peaceful protest, you should read Andy Ngo’s description of his five days inside CHAZ/CHOP. In addition to the shootings there has been one arrest for sexual assault and another for arson. This left-wing utopia is going about as well as expected.