Is this what we've become?

[Crockett]

Yet this morning, he is Uncle Tom on XM Urban View. Until leaders of the black community, liberal politicians and the media face facts, they will forever feel they are victims.

That's pretty ugly, especially given that Brown has taken on the police unions and fired a number of officers involved in excessive force allegations. Brown should be universally admired ... but especially by those worried about police violence.

 

[Mr. Deez]

However, I am frustrated that all the improvements seem to be one sided.Police need to learn how to de-escalate situations. HRC wants to spend a billion dollars re-training police and how to act around black males in particular.
White people need to learn what white privilege means and act accordingly.
What I seem to be missing is how black people can change their perceptions as well. I think there is work to be done, but all the work can't be done on one side to cater to the other. We all need to step back, examine our perceptions, look inward, and move from there.

I just don't seem to see that thought from the black side of things, and I hate making it a black and white, tit for tat...but black people need to accept and own their roles in how things have evolved. Keeping your hands visible on a steering wheel is something I learned when I was 15 and in drivers ed.
Being compliant with Police was taught to me by my parents once I got my drivers license. No change will happen until everyone accepts that fixing things will only happen if everyone is working to fix them. I don't know how it began...now it seems like the chicken and the egg, and pointing fingers will get us nowhere. We ALL need to work on understanding and trust.
Lastly, unfortunately I have little hope when I see articles such as this one, and read the comments and see the number of "likes". Of course, the shooter in Dallas is the fault of white people. That line of thinking will only lead to more incidents like the one in Dallas. Where is the accountability? How can we improve when only one side feels the need to change?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ing-america-racist-creation-article-1.2704556

It is one-sided. I listened to several podcasts and read several articles in the last few days, and frankly I've been hearing the same rap on this issue that I've heard since I started following politics about 25 years ago. I've always heard and still hear the term "dialogue" used a lot, but the dialogue is only acceptable if a few ground rules and assumptions are accepted beforehand.

First, white people are ignorant, self-centered, and weak-minded. They live very sheltered lives, are in denial about anybody other than themselves, and are too racked with fear and emotional timidity to face the race issue or accept any responsibility for injustice. This article is indicative of this assumption. Your average commentator on the issue isn't as inflammatory as Eve Ensler is. After all, she's a colossal crackpot. However, if you really listen to most liberal commentators (white or black) discuss racial issues of any kind, they largely echo her mentality, albeit with more diplomatic rhetoric.

On the flip side, blacks are presumed to have a very broad and accurate picture not only of their circumstances but of whites' circumstances as well. They're also presumed to be very rational, morally strong, and courageous.

Second, all whites are the same, and it's politically correct to generalize about them. There is no reason to respect their individuality or the uniqueness of their circumstances. Obviously, if you suggest that blacks are anything other than very distinct individuals, you're a horrible person.

Third, privilege breaks down along race, which overwhelmingly trumps any other factor. Some broke-*** poor white kid in East Texas isn't much less privileged than Donald Trump's son. The son of a black Major League baseball player is almost as oppressed as a broke-*** poor black kid growing up on the streets of Memphis. That's why a poor or middle class white person who complains about affirmative action discriminating against him can be told to shut up, check his privilege, and have his concerns dismissed.

Fourth, because of the first and third factors, whites aren't worthy to take issue with the self-ordained black leadership in a meaningful way, and if they do, they're just showing their ignorance and privilege, which needs to be checked. Furthermore, if they don't relent, they're to be demonized. If you get combative with BLM, you're not a much better than a guy in a white hood stringing a black guy up from a tree.

So accept those rules and assumptions, and we can dialogue. In other words, it's not a real dialogue. If you're white, you need to shut up and get lectured by enlightened black activists, while they get fawned over self-loathing and self-flagellating white liberals like Eve Ensler.

I know this topic is generally about law enforcement, but at least on the Left, all racial issues seem to be viewed through this lens and are expected to be debated under these terms.

To sort of (but not really) shift gears, Michael Eric Dyson made an interesting statement on a Meet the Press panel on Sunday. He said:

"It is an unconscious, if you will, inclination [for police] to see that black person differently, through a different prism, to have greater fear. The police, the cop on the front line feels a kind of intensity that he does not feel."

Michael Gerson (who's sort of a wimpy, non-assertive Republican) called for the need for empathy mainly by whites - basically agreed with Dyson. Eugene Robinson (who's a very partisan black liberal) agreed. Mary Matalin (a conservative but a non-intellectual) basically beat around the bush and made no meaningful point on the matter.

I'll be honest. I think Dyson is correct. I'm sure your average cop's fear and instincts elevate when he confronts a black guy. But I heard nobody ask or entertain and explanation for why that would be true or why it might be justified. It's just assumed that the cop who has that heightened fear is irrational, hateful, or both. I don't think he's either. I think he relies on his experiences and the experiences of others he knows, and he relies on the fact that his assumptions based on those experiences are supported by statistics.

I think the cop knows that anybody can attack him at any time, but he also knows that if he confronts a black male, he's more likely to get attacked or face resistance than if he confronts a white male and especially a white female. Because he knows that to be true, it's going to make him more on edge. Does that make the cop wrong? Should he try to suppress that intensity when he knows that he's in greater danger? I think that's asking too much, and if we're being honest, nobody would do that, because it's irrational and frankly, dangerous.

But nobody on Meet the Press would even touch that issue. Why not? It's because it's outside the acceptable parameters of the "dialogue" we're supposed to be having.

By the way, before I'm dismissed as a crazy racist, I'll readily admit that there are real racial disparities in the criminal justice system that can't be justified by even a rational personal fear. Drug enforcement heavily discriminates against minorities (especially blacks). There is a wild disparity in the availability of competent legal counsel that discriminates against the poor (who are more likely to be minorities). Juries are tougher on black defendants. Petty crimes (more likely to be committed by minorities) are much easier to prove than white collar crimes (more likely to be committed by whites). There are real areas in which black complaints are justifiable.

 

[Crockett]

I'll not defend the "Hands up, don't shoot!'" lie nor the despicable behavior of some young blacks outside a 7-11 in Dallas, who were looting after the criminal sniper shot out the window. They mocked police officers over their fallen comrades. Despicable, but my contempt for their behavior isn't very potent to them.
I haven't a lever over the behavior of young black men, except the ones in band, scouting or church activities where basically the kids are great and my input is encouraging.

Policing policy is an issue where I can exert a limited amount of political leverage. Frankly though in Dallas and the suburbs where I'm politically active, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Highland Village and Denton County, law enforcement is done in a very evenhanded way. I've ridden with suburban officers and in my view minorities, the poor, smart mouthed teens and adults who grew up with white privilege are all treated pretty well.

 

[Phil Elliott]

When the left says "dialogue" or "conversation", what they really mean is "lecture".

 

[4th_floor]

So theiisoftx, it's not the black people being shot by cops for little good reason that's the problem? It's politicians complaining about black people being shot by cops that is the problem? What sandpile do you have your head in and are you recommending it for the BLM people?

One cause of police murders is rhetoric like this. Yes there are racist cops. Yes, there are cops who shoot suspects too quickly because they are racist, scared, or mentally unstable. But it is extremely rare for a cop to shoot a suspect of any race without good reason. We should all work together to ensure that bad cops are not protected from prosecution. But we need to stop this knee jerk reaction whenever a black man is shot by police. Stop blaming all police for the actions of a few. Stop the hateful rhetoric. These over-reactions are encouraging more Dallas type massacres.

 

[4th_floor]

I'm happy to let the justice system determine the facts and law for officers involved in the Minnesota and Louisiana shooting and freely admit that neither I nor anybody else should adjudicate the cases from the bits and pieces available through the media. The consequences for the young black men involved are already decided. It's likely that with better policing, they would still be breathing.

The Louisiana shooting could have been prevented if the individual had not resisted arrest. He might be in jail now, but at least he would be alive.

 

[theiioftx]

I was pulled over about a year ago at 4:30am in the morning. I live in a rural area and it was a county sheriff deputy. I was obviously not doing anything wrong. He accused me of speeding (I clearly wasn't).

When he approached my vehicle, I had both hands clearly in sighting above the steering wheel. When he asked to see my license, I explained where it was and that my money clip was silver. Long story short, I was polite and gave him no reason to be in any fear or surprise.

No matter what your race, you are not likely to be shot if you are polite, follow commands and work to make sure the officer knows you are not hiding anything like a weapon.

 

[Crockett]

One cause of police murders is rhetoric like this. Yes there are racist cops. Yes, there are cops who shoot suspects too quickly because they are racist, scared, or mentally unstable. But it is extremely rare for a cop to shoot a suspect of any race without good reason. We should all work together to ensure that bad cops are not protected from prosecution. But we need to stop this knee jerk reaction whenever a black man is shot by police. Stop blaming all police for the actions of a few. Stop the hateful rhetoric. These over-reactions are encouraging more Dallas type massacres.

I was reacting to a lot of media that was holding Obama personally responsible for the murders of police officer. Talk about irrational angry rhetoric....

 

[NJlonghorn]

It is one-sided. I listened to several podcasts and read several articles in the last few days, and frankly I've been hearing the same rap on this issue that I've heard since I started following politics about 25 years ago. I've always heard and still hear the term "dialogue" used a lot, but the dialogue is only acceptable if a few ground rules and assumptions are accepted beforehand.

First, white people are ignorant, self-centered, and weak-minded. They live very sheltered lives, are in denial about anybody other than themselves, and are too racked with fear and emotional timidity to face the race issue or accept any responsibility for injustice. This article is indicative of this assumption. Your average commentator on the issue isn't as inflammatory as Eve Ensler is. After all, she's a colossal crackpot. However, if you really listen to most liberal commentators (white or black) discuss racial issues of any kind, they largely echo her mentality, albeit with more diplomatic rhetoric.

On the flip side, blacks are presumed to have a very broad and accurate picture not only of their circumstances but of whites' circumstances as well. They're also presumed to be very rational, morally strong, and courageous.

Second, all whites are the same, and it's politically correct to generalize about them. There is no reason to respect their individuality or the uniqueness of their circumstances. Obviously, if you suggest that blacks are anything other than very distinct individuals, you're a horrible person.

Third, privilege breaks down along race, which overwhelmingly trumps any other factor. Some broke-*** poor white kid in East Texas isn't much less privileged than Donald Trump's son. The son of a black Major League baseball player is almost as oppressed as a broke-*** poor black kid growing up on the streets of Memphis. That's why a poor or middle class white person who complains about affirmative action discriminating against him can be told to shut up, check his privilege, and have his concerns dismissed.

Fourth, because of the first and third factors, whites aren't worthy to take issue with the self-ordained black leadership in a meaningful way, and if they do, they're just showing their ignorance and privilege, which needs to be checked. Furthermore, if they don't relent, they're to be demonized. If you get combative with BLM, you're not a much better than a guy in a white hood stringing a black guy up from a tree.

So accept those rules and assumptions, and we can dialogue. In other words, it's not a real dialogue. If you're white, you need to shut up and get lectured by enlightened black activists, while they get fawned over self-loathing and self-flagellating white liberals like Eve Ensler.

I know this topic is generally about law enforcement, but at least on the Left, all racial issues seem to be viewed through this lens and are expected to be debated under these terms.

To sort of (but not really) shift gears, Michael Eric Dyson made an interesting statement on a Meet the Press panel on Sunday. He said:

"It is an unconscious, if you will, inclination [for police] to see that black person differently, through a different prism, to have greater fear. The police, the cop on the front line feels a kind of intensity that he does not feel."

Michael Gerson (who's sort of a wimpy, non-assertive Republican) called for the need for empathy mainly by whites - basically agreed with Dyson. Eugene Robinson (who's a very partisan black liberal) agreed. Mary Matalin (a conservative but a non-intellectual) basically beat around the bush and made no meaningful point on the matter.

I'll be honest. I think Dyson is correct. I'm sure your average cop's fear and instincts elevate when he confronts a black guy. But I heard nobody ask or entertain and explanation for why that would be true or why it might be justified. It's just assumed that the cop who has that heightened fear is irrational, hateful, or both. I don't think he's either. I think he relies on his experiences and the experiences of others he knows, and he relies on the fact that his assumptions based on those experiences are supported by statistics.

I think the cop knows that anybody can attack him at any time, but he also knows that if he confronts a black male, he's more likely to get attacked or face resistance than if he confronts a white male and especially a white female. Because he knows that to be true, it's going to make him more on edge. Does that make the cop wrong? Should he try to suppress that intensity when he knows that he's in greater danger? I think that's asking too much, and if we're being honest, nobody would do that, because it's irrational and frankly, dangerous.

But nobody on Meet the Press would even touch that issue. Why not? It's because it's outside the acceptable parameters of the "dialogue" we're supposed to be having.

By the way, before I'm dismissed as a crazy racist, I'll readily admit that there are real racial disparities in the criminal justice system that can't be justified by even a rational personal fear. Drug enforcement heavily discriminates against minorities (especially blacks). There is a wild disparity in the availability of competent legal counsel that discriminates against the poor (who are more likely to be minorities). Juries are tougher on black defendants. Petty crimes (more likely to be committed by minorities) are much easier to prove than white collar crimes (more likely to be committed by whites). There are real areas in which black complaints are justifiable.

While Deez chose more forceful language than I would, I essentially agree with his comments about BLM.

I have often said that radical claims (left or right) usually have a kernel of truth, but go way overboard. This situation is no different, as Deez points out in his final paragraph. Blacks are mistreated in the criminal justice system, but the BLM reaction is both excessive and counterproductive.

 

[I35]

I was reacting to a lot of media that was holding Obama personally responsible for the murders of police officer. Talk about irrational angry rhetoric....

Crockett, he has put fuel on the fire every chance he's had. Where have you been? Watch this segment of Judge Jeanine and try to deny her examples of Obama's rhetoric. He should be denouncing BLM instead of inviting them to the White House.

 

[Crockett]

I35 I make it a point to actually listen to what Obama says instead of letting the prolific right wing hate spewers tell me what he said.

 

[I35]

I35 I make it a point to actually listen to what Obama says instead of letting the prolific right wing hate spewers tell me what he said.

WOW! You're denying it with example after example with videos of his own words that can't be misinterpreted. Ok how about this, will you at least admit that he puts his foot in his mouth often before he even knows the facts? Like Michael Brown & Cambridge police acted stupidly? I've never seen a President so divisive. May not even see a President this divisive ever again. Not saying that Hillary or Trump or future Presidents won't but divisive, but none will make this much of an effort to divide men from women, old vs young, white vs black, Christians vs Islam and on and on.

 

[mchammer]

While Deez chose more forceful language than I would, I essentially agree with his comments about BLM.

I have often said that radical claims (left or right) usually have a kernel of truth, but go way overboard. This situation is no different, as Deez points out in his final paragraph. Blacks are mistreated in the criminal justice system, but the BLM reaction is both excessive and counterproductive.

Wait till the riot at the DNC.

 

[Crockett]

Judge Jeanine

I watched. She seemed to want to conflate actual missteps Obama made with every one made by the BLM movement, which are more numerous since they are less cautious and political than he is. I know a lot of us are angry and obviously there are a lot of us who enjoy being angry which is why this kind of unhelpful spite Judge Jeanine spewed is coming forth from all over. Anger isn't helpful in working out disagreements and we can't get out of this mess without loving and listening. If you think blacks are angry because of what Obama has said and not the fact that black people are getting killed by police ... I think you have a loose grasp on reality, but on the positive side, I guess you can expect the problem to be solved early next year. That's an optimism I wish I could share.

 

[mb227]

Red Rover, Red Rover, let Crockett come over.... Seriously, you offered a lot of viewpoints, some that I'll agree with ... but there is not a side. And if you don't have empathy for the concealed carry guy, his girlfriend and daughter, in Minnesota blasted to death when reaching for his license, you and I can't be on the same "side"

As far as I know, the only video released is the facebooked one with the aftermath where it is claimed he was reaching for his license. However, what has NOT been discussed is whether he let the officer know where he was going with his hands. I was always trained that, weapon or not, you let an officer during a traffic stop know exactly where you were going with your hands at all times.

I'm not going to take a side at this juncture as to whether the officer rightfully was in fear to the point of using deadly force...I would prefer to wait for the investigation to run its course. Having a CHL does not mean you are immune from using common sense. This is also the same reason I actually have no issue with the NRA not having made a statement beyond 'lets wait for the facts' in this matter...

 

[I35]

If you think blacks are angry because of what Obama has said and not the fact that black people are getting killed by police ... I think you have a loose grasp on reality, but on the positive side, I guess you can expect the problem to be solved early next year. That's an optimism I wish I could share.

I think it's your reality that needs to be checked. You're dreaming if you think criminals will quit being criminals and police not having to shoot them. Not going to happen my friend.

 

[mb227]

The Louisiana shooting could have been prevented if the individual had not resisted arrest. He might be in jail now, but at least he would be alive.

It also likely would not have occurred had a felon not been in possession of a weapon...granted, his status as a felon did not become known until later, but HE knew he was prohibited by law from mere possession of a weapon, much less carrying one.

 

[Clean]

Now, three policemen killed in Baton Rouge. Several others injured. 1 cop killer, oops, I meant "suspect" dead. 2 others on the run.

Unless this miraculously turns out to not be related to recent events in Baton Rouge, I'd say it's open warfare on cops now.

 

[Brad Austin]

Baton Rouge cops under siege today and a powder keg is brewing next week at RNC.

A large group of Bikers for Trump (30,000 members) are headed to Cleveland and plan to be armed to "help the police" and defend Trump supporters.

After the unprovoked attacks on Trump supporters at his Chicago rally, this group vowed to attend future events in protection of Trump supporters.

The New Black Panthers have also expressed their intent to join the festivities while strapped with their guns.

Cleveland police and political leaders are already saying they fully expect some very bad things to go down.

The head of one of Cleveland’s largest police unions is calling on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to temporarily restrict the state’s open carry gun laws during this week’s Republican National Convention following Sunday’s shooting in Louisiana that killed three officers and wounded at least three others.​

“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN. “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”​

The next few days are gonna be a brutally grave continuation of the last horrible days in Dallas, Nice, and Baton Rouge.

This thing is really coming off the rails, Folks. We need to eradicate a politician from our country's top position asap.

 

[iatrogenic]

The conventions should be cordoned off for three blocks. If you don't have a reason to be in the hall, you don't get passed the control points.

I'll not defend the "Hands up, don't shoot!'" lie nor the despicable behavior of some young blacks outside a 7-11 in Dallas, who were looting after the criminal sniper shot out the window. They mocked police officers over their fallen comrades. Despicable, but my contempt for their behavior isn't very potent to them.
I haven't a lever over the behavior of young black men, except the ones in band, scouting or church activities where basically the kids are great and my input is encouraging.

Policing policy is an issue where I can exert a limited amount of political leverage. Frankly though in Dallas and the suburbs where I'm politically active, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Highland Village and Denton County, law enforcement is done in a very evenhanded way. I've ridden with suburban officers and in my view minorities, the poor, smart mouthed teens and adults who grew up with white privilege are all treated pretty well.

When you use terms like "white privilege" and support a political party that pushes laws and rhetoric that slow the progress of blacks, don't think that you are not part of the problem.

 

[Crockett]

So lets say after Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Baton Rouge, etc. the President had spoken after police actions and said "Hey -- there's really nothing to be angry about folks. We're investigating and don't have all the facts yet, but most likely it was just cops doing their jobs. If these angry young men had simply been compliaint, most times everything would be hunky dory?"

You think there would be less anger at police?

 

[iatrogenic]

You can't be so naive to think the President and DOJ are not pushing this divisive issue, can you?

 

[texas_ex2000]

So lets say after Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Baton Rouge, etc. the President had spoken after police actions and said "Hey -- there's really nothing to be angry about folks. We're investigating and don't have all the facts yet, but most likely it was just cops doing their jobs. If these angry young men had simply been complaint, most times everything would be hunky dory?"

You think there would be less anger at police?

Crockett, Obama got 98% and I think 95% of the African American vote in '08 and '12. When have you ever seen any group of people more than 20 agree on anything with that percentage? A massive part of that is the African American Experience guiding their vote to a candidate they believe empathized with their experiences. But 95%+? No.

At that kind of level in a population more diverse than that 95%+ number suggests, historical social structural forces are at play. You get 95%+ uniformity because people are told to vote that way from their leaders...church leaders, cultural leaders, democratic party leaders. You're told you're an Uncle Tom if you vote otherwise.

So yes, given how much influence charismatic African American leaders have over individuals in the African American Comminity it is a very fair and reasonable hypothesis that if President Obama, who is a Community leader, said we're investigating and looking at all the facts, but tragedies like this can and do occur when police try to just do their job to protect the community (crazy...I know), that the anger against police could be much lower.

 

[Clean]

Obama lit the fire with his rhetoric and his actions after the deaths of Martin, Brown, Gray, etc. He did it by implying that the justice system, the police, hell the whole country is racist and out to get/kill black people. Now the fire is starting to rage out of control.

It angered me to hear his pathetic statement yesterday, after the Baton Rouge shooting; "people shouldn't use inflammatory rhetoric to make political points", ha! That's what his whole Presidency has been about. He couldn't even resist inflammatory remarks in his speech in Dallas at the memorial for the 5 slain officers. Reap what you've sown Mr. President. Reap what you've sown.

 

[theiioftx]

So lets say after Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Baton Rouge, etc. the President had spoken after police actions and said "Hey -- there's really nothing to be angry about folks. We're investigating and don't have all the facts yet, but most likely it was just cops doing their jobs. If these angry young men had simply been compliaint, most times everything would be hunky dory?"

You think there would be less anger at police?

A leader who cannot start with the truth, is no leader. Obama could have started with, "this is tragic, but we do not know all of the facts. In our country, you are innocent until proven guilty. We should let all of the facts come out and then assess what to do about it. In the meantime, keep all involved in your thoughts and prayers."

 

[Horn6721]

Croc
So what in your pretend BO speech is not true?
Shouldn't people including here on WM wait for the investigation before calling cops names? "in MOST cases" if the men shot had been compliant don't you think many of those deaths would have been prevented?
Heck BO could even say 'hunky dory" and still that speech would work better than his actual words which so far seems only to fan the anger.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Obama lit the fire with his rhetoric and his actions after the deaths of Martin, Brown, Gray, etc. He did it by implying that the justice system, the police, hell the whole country is racist and out to get/kill black people. Now the fire is starting to rage out of control.

America has a long-standing problem with how the justice system treats blacks. Obama has been the first president willing to address this issue head on. His handling of the issue has been far from perfect, but imho it is better than doing little or nothing.

So, if there is a problem with how the justice system treats blacks, the first remedial step is to say that there is a problem with how the justice system treats blacks. There is no way around that. I wholeheartedly support those, including President Obama, who add their voice to the chorus complaining about how the justice system treats blacks.

Sometimes Obama doesn't have the best sense of when to stop. He says a bit too much, and it can start to sound like he is favoring the protestors over the police. This is especially true when you read isolated statements instead of entire speeches. But then, he says something stronger and clearer in support of the police. Overall, I think he does a passable job of striking a balance between civil rights and police safety.

Unfortunately, some people hear what Obama actually says and turn it into something he doesn't say. He uses phrases like "we need to have a conversation" and "people should not be pulled over for driving while black." These are moderate, careful phrases that nobody reasonable can disagree with. But for some reason, people hear "the justice system, the police, hell the whole country is racist and out to get/kill black people". Obama has never said anything remotely approaching this, and suggesting it says more about you than it does about him.

Obama's strongest statements, by far, are NOT the ones complaining about how the justice system treats blacks. His strongest statements condemn those who overreact. When protests turn into riots, he loudly and unequivocally condemns the violent protestors as criminals and thugs.

I do think that the black community by and large respects Obama and takes what he says to heart. If Obama was using inflammatory rhetoric along the lines of what you suggest, we would have all-out riots across the country. Thousands of cops dead, national guard deployed, martial law declared, etc. Fortunately, Obama has called for conversations and peaceful protests, and the vast majority of black Americans have heeded that call. If we continue along the path that he has paved, I think things will get better, slowly and painfully.

Predictably, some blacks haven't heeded Obama's call and have resorted to violence, against the community in general and against cops in particular. I'm not sure what Obama could have done to avoid that, other than ignore the problem and let it fester.

 

[theiioftx]

Isn't the issue how the justice system treats the poor? I realize the insinuation is that blacks referenced in this narrative are poor, but I think it speaks similarly to the generalizations pushed by BLM and Obama.

 

[Mr. Deez]

"people should not be pulled over for driving while black." These are moderate, careful phrases that nobody reasonable can disagree with.

Nobody reasonable can disagree with this statement if taken literally, but I'm not sure I could call it "moderate." It's very loaded and implies a lot.

 

[Phil Elliott]

America has a long-standing problem with how the justice system treats blacks.

Like what? Statements like this start with the premise, which we are all just supposed to accept as fact, that all races have the same propensity to commit violent crime. This is demonstrably not true.

The POTUS did say that racism is rampant in the police force. This is BS. If they are more inclined to suspect/pull over/arrest blacks, it's not because they are racist. It's because they have overwhelmingly more negative interactions with black males.