Archive for the ‘Crime’ Category

Jason Riley: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial

Thursday, July 18th, 2013

George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in a Florida court has been followed by predictable calls for America to have a “national conversation” about this or that aspect of the case. President Obama wants to talk about gun control. Civil-rights leaders want to talk about racial profiling. Others want to discuss how the American criminal justice system supposedly targets black men.

All of which is fine. Just don’t expect these conversations to be especially illuminating or honest. Liberals in general, and the black left in particular, like the idea of talking about racial problems, but in practice they typically ignore the most relevant aspects of any such discussion.

Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. The U.S. criminal-justice system, which currently is headed by one black man (Attorney General Eric Holder) who reports to another (President Obama), is a reflection of this reality, not its cause.

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz in “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

The jury’s only job in the Zimmerman trial was to determine whether the defendant broke the law when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year in a gated community near Orlando, Fla. In cases of self-defense, it doesn’t matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.

All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.

Did the perception of black criminality play a role in Martin’s death? We may never know for certain, but we do know that those negative perceptions of young black men are rooted in hard data on who commits crimes. We also know that young black men will not change how they are perceived until they change how they behave.

The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

So let’s have our discussions, even if the only one that really needs to occur is within the black community. Civil-rights leaders today choose to keep the focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility, but their predecessors knew better.

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

Mr. Riley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared July 16, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578608182550247030.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Al Sharpton Challenge

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Dear Al:

I was listening to some of the rhetoric surrounding the tragic shooting of Treyvon Martin. Much debate has related to Mr. Martin’s ensemble, which some say is emblematic of certain gangs or criminals.

While a case may certainly be made to support such suspicions (remember Jessie Jackson 03/10/1996) I was thinking of how wrong that would be, to judge a person solely on the basis of their attire. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to judge a person solely on the basis of their affiliations with groups such as ACLU (think Sean Hannity).

So Al, I’ll make a deal with you … I’ll concede that not everyone in a hoodie is a criminal, if you acknowledge  that not everyone that flies a Confederate Flag is a bigot!

I am proud to be a non-hyphenated, God Fearing, patriotic  American!

“Personal Boundaries: Where Do You Draw the Line?”

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

“Personal Boundaries: Where Do You Draw the Line?”

by Kathy Jackson

The last few weeks we have been republishing some articles from past issues
of Concealed Carry Magazine to give everyone a taste of what they are
missing if they aren’t a subscriber to the United States Concealed Carry
Association. This week’s article is from the Web Only Articles. We have way
too much great info to squeeze into the issues of Concealed Carry Magazine,
so we publish the additional articles on the web. New articles are added
every week.

Listed below are some conditions under which I intend to fight back even if
I don’t think I can win.

I have made this list for myself because I understand that the natural thing
to do, when something bad happens, is to deny that it is happening: “This
can’t be happening to me!”

Even if you get past that thought (a lot of victims never do), the other
natural tendency is to tell yourself that if you wait, if you do what the
other person says, things will get better. The situation will work itself
out. All you have to do is cooperate. The attacker will take your wallet,
your car keys, whatever, and leave you alone. Just wait, do what he says,
and everything will be okay. That’s what most people who are attacked tell
themselves — and in most cases, that is exactly what people should do. Even
if you are armed, why kill someone if you don’t have to? It’s only stuff!

But while waiting for an opening and cooperating with the attacker might be
the best survival strategy in many situations, there are a few very specific
situations where waiting and cooperating are the worst things the victim can
possibly do.

A woman forced into a car by an attacker, for instance, has a 95% or higher
chance of getting killed if she complies. Even if it seems highly likely the
attacker will kill her right there if she doesn’t get in the car, the fact
is that right at that moment, the odds are the very best they will ever be
for her. They might be lousy odds, but they aren’t going to get any better.
So I have decided, in advance, that if I’m ever in that situation, that’s
when and where I will fight back no matter what my frozen brain and
in-denial guts are telling me about my odds.

Similarly, a man forced into a back room on his knees, with his back to the
attacker, has just been put into the execution position. Most of the time,
when someone is forced into this position, what comes next is a bullet in
the back of the skull. Once you are on your knees, you don’t have any more
choices left, even if do you suddenly realize what is about to happen. If
you’re going to save your own life in such a situation, you have to make the
choice to fight back before you’re on your knees.

The purpose of analyzing this stuff beforehand is to make sure that even my
frozen brain and my in-denial guts cannot lull me into cooperating if I am
ever in one of the extreme places where a victim really needs to fight if
she is going to survive. Because I’ve thought about this stuff in advance,
if something like it ever happens, even my frozen brain will have a definite
decision point.

Some of my personal boundaries are:

* I will not go anywhere at gunpoint. If the bad guy wants me to go
somewhere else, it’s because he will be able to do something to me there
that he is unwilling or unable to do to me right here, right now. Therefore
no matter how bad the tactical situation seems right here and now, right
here and now is the absolute best chance to fight back I will ever have and
I intend to use it.

* I will not be tied up. If the bad guy wants to tie me up, it is because he
wants to do things to me that I would be able to prevent if I were not tied
up. Therefore, I will resist while I am still able to do so.

* I will not kneel. No one is going to execute me. If I die, I’ll die
fighting.

* If someone tries to take one of my children, I will fight even at the risk
of my child being killed in the resultant firefight. I plan this not because
I have positive assurance that I would be successful, but because I would
not be able to live with myself if I simply “allowed” my child to be taken,
brutalized, and his body perhaps never found. I’d rather watch him die in
front of me. (Yes, that’s harsh … but given those two options and only
those two, which would you choose?)

My point is not that your boundaries should be the same as mine. It is
simply that even though you can wait until the very last moment to make the
final decision about fighting back, you should have certain things already
set into your decision-making machinery beforehand. If you don’t, and if you
are ever attacked, you may not have enough time to do anything but stand
there with your brain frozen solid while your attacker takes all your
choices away.
***

Kathy Jackson is the Managing Editor of Concealed Carry Magazine.