Monday, June 15, 2020


UPDATE: The DA of Atlanta announced tonight that there are three possible charges. First degree murder; Felony murder- the felony being aggravated assault; or manslaughter. Let us say this- one of the worst pandemics to hit the African American community is the felony murder rule. There are countless minority people serving life sentences for a murder they never committed. Filing a felony murder charge would be a total cop-out; an abandonment of the prosecutor's powers to bring charges. It's either first degree murder or manslaughter. 

Ralph Waldo Emmerson wrote that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", which is why- like the 11th circuit when they rule for the defendant and the government files a motion to reconsider- we are willing to reconsider  our positions  when we are wrong.

So here are our thoughts about the Atlanta shooting. 
First, from the perspective of the police, the Monday Morning quarterbacking we are seeing is nauseating. You cannot judge a police officer until you have been in his or her shoes. Until you know what it is like to leave your home every day for work with two infant children, hoping nothing happens that day and you can be there to raise them until adulthood. So when the officer is running in the parking lot and Rayshard Brooks turns and fires at him,  fear and training and instinct take over.

But we are willing to consider this deeper. And here is what we know. Brooks was intoxicated. Brooks was searched and no weapon was found. Brooks resisted arrest and disarmed the officer of his taser and fled. The Monday morning QB say that the officer overreacted and should have just let him run and in a moment Brooks would have stopped, winded and being intoxicated, surrendered. 

So the next question is whether this is a matter of race? Was Brooks being properly arrested? Yes. He was passed out, in a car, in a drive-through and apparently his breath alcohol as measured, was over the legal limit. 
So Brooks should have been arrested regardless of his race.

Next question: If Brooks was a white man, would he have been shot? 
Based on what we saw here, with the police officer reacting and over-reacting based on being attacked and having his taser taken-  yes, we think when that officer went after Brooks he was not thinking about Brooks being black. Does that mean that the inherent prejudices that arise with black men did not in some way affect the officer's decision to shoot? There is no way of knowing.

 Now, we have to take a moment and define our terms. Various social movements are highlighting the prejudices that arise simply from a man being black in America in 2020. The differences between the way the police treat a black man being stopped in a car and a white man being stopped in a car. Black parents have to speak to their teenage sons about the dangers of a traffic stop. White parents do not. This is what we mean by the term "inherent prejudice"- the simple and wrong action of judging someone as more dangerous simply because they are a black male.  

We have to disagree with our conclusion yesterday. The shooting is not so clear cut justified. 

But to take it a step further we have to engage in Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We have to say that the officer could have let Brooks run a bit more after Brooks discharged the taser at the officer. We have to say that the officer should not have actively chased Brooks and just remained a distance back and let him run himself out. These are all things that it is easy for us to do from the safety of our voluntary home confinement. Just like it is easy for us to decry how black men are treated differently by the police although we have never experienced such violent treatment. 

What we want to say is that this is not a matter of race. And yet...George Floyd couldn't breathe when a white officer used his knee to end his life. And yet Arthur McDuffie in Miami was shot and killed and the officers acquitted. And yet there are literally hundreds of instances of black men like Trayvon Martin being killed by white men. In 2009 Oscar Grant, a black teenager, was shot in the back and killed by white officers in San Francisco. In November 2019, Ariane McCray was shot and killed by white officers in South Carolina after being stopped for shoplifting at a Walmart. Terrance Franklin, a 22 year old black man was shot and killed in 2013b with his hands in air by Minneapolis SWAT officers responding to a burglary complaint. The list goes on and on and on and on. It is why people are taking to the streets. They have had enough. And we- the wealthy, successful ruling class of America have not listened closely enough. We have shaken our heads in sadness until the next black man was shot and killed or choked to death and then we have shaken our heads again. 

The time for just shaking our heads has run out. That is why people are protesting and burning things and attacking police stations. 
 So how can we say this is not a matter of race when time and time again race factors into an officer's decision to use force and deadly force? 

We are confounded. We do not want this to be about race. And yet....



TODAY'S SCOTUS RULING ON THE ISSUE OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS a 6-3 vote. Alito's Dissent is a must read. It starts out:

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.

There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list,1 and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well.2 But to date, none has passed both Houses.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty.3 This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.

Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.4 A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society. See A. Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation 22 (1997). If the Court finds it appropriate to adopt this theory, it should own up to what it is doing.5

Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964.

It indisputably did not.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Neil for doing the right thing. About time a "conservative" did the right thing. I guess his wife couldn't find a straight male hairdresser so, he decided to treat us fairly even if not the "republican" thing to do.

Anonymous said...

JFC you can't spell Emerson's name right?

Anonymous said...

The guy ran, the cop ran after. That's what they are trained to do. He could run into a home, carjack someone, take a hostage, you have no idea what he will do. He has already proven to be violent. Maybe he is mentally ill...you catch him as quick as you can...that is the best policy. Maybe he tases a bystander so police have to stop and render aid?..you have to act.

As to the taser, it is not lethal force, but it can temporarily incapacitate the officer. In 2 seconds he could tase the officer, get to his gun, kill him dead, all before the cops partner arrives.

The real question is, should the officer be required to take the risk (albeit likely low) of being incapacitated and then murdered.

In my view, the officer was justified in preventing that small risk to his life. He doesn't have to play russian roulette, even with low odds. The decedent is entirely in the wrong, clearly resisted, stuck the officer, stole his taser. He CHOSE to create the deadly situation like a total coward, all to avoid going to jail for a DUI.

There are those out there who believe cops should risk being incapacitated. Good for them. I hope they sign up to be cops.

I dont like the finger wagging from the mayor. You have the power to change the policy. If the policy should be "let em run" and "risk incapacitation" then put it in writing and cops can make an informed decision on if they want to serve on a force like that.

But i think the cop followed policy.

Anonymous said...

The real question is, should the officer be required to take the risk (albeit likely low) of being incapacitated and then murdered.

I kind of agree with you on the question. And my answer is YES. C

Cops will always tell you how they are heroic. Indeed that is what we want them to be. So, be heroic....risk your life and don't be so quick to kill...that is what you signed up for. Don't be a coward and shoot a man in the back because there is a small chance he could harm you.

If they don't want to truly put their lives on the line, dont be a cop. That is why people who lack a college diploma get paid as much as they do and have the benefits they do. In theory, it is a tough job. Being quick to kill (black men) becauae they can make a colorable claim that there was a risk is not what we as society should be paying them to do.

If this were two guys on the street and the fight went down this way, the shooter would be rightly charged with murder. Does being able to chase a man down to arrest him give you the right to kill him? Is that the difference that makes this okay? Fuck that.

Kissimmee Kid said...


That's some fancy-smanchy bullshit. Title VII uses the word, "sex," not gender. Yes, some racist old asshole stuck the word "sex" in the bill when he intended gender, but that is because he wanted his fellow legislators to recognize that giving the colored folks equal employment opportunity was as dumb an idea of letting women work. Well, the poison pill didn't work. The darn thing passed. "Sex" is the word the legislation used.

Why do we hate fudge-packers? Sex. They have sex we don't like. The only thing that is different between a hetronormative and a homosexual is the sex. Take the Georgia social worker; he was the star of the office, the best of the bunch, the cream of the crop. Then, we found out he packed fudge. Fired. He was fired because of sex. He had sex the boss did not like, and he was fired for if.

The statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex." That was the legislative decision. That was the word the Legislature used. Too bad it was stuck in as a joke, it is in the statute. It is not "legislating from the bench" when a court gives the plain meaning to the words of a statute.

Quit your complaining.

Anonymous said...


Never have i ever heard a cop self proclaim to be a hero.

But it is actually true that cops are heros every single day. Think about getting a domestic violence call...you are told there is a drunk guy with a gun threatening to kill his wife...and your job is to respond. That is risking your life. That is being a hero in my book.

400 since you look down on cops why dont you tell us about yourself. What do you do for a living? Ever considered being a cop? Why dont you step up an sign up to be a cop and be part of the solution?

Anonymous said...

I think you are right re walking into dangerous situations. That is why they are trained. That is why they have backup officers. Don't cry about how dangerous the job is that you chose, especially when there is more than adequate training and resources. Being a garbage man or roofer is more dangerous. Look it up.

I regularly hear then call themselves and all cops hero. Here is but one example of your union rep referring to all arrested officers, including one who shot an unarmed healthcare worker, hero:


No, I have not considered being a cop. I do not have the temperament to be a cop....I would be too quick to point out injustices around me and not tolerate my fellow officers beating the crap out of unarmed black men and women:


See, if I witnessed that crime being committed, I would have cuffed that officer for battery. That would make me a bad cop.

If I saw a grown man cold cock a drunk girl because his ego was hurt, I would say something, or more:


Again, that would make me a bad cop.

If I saw two of my brother officers mace and then kick the shit out of a highschool kid, I would intervene:


That would make me a dangerous cop.

So in short, I don't want to be a cop because I would be a bad cop.

I am not a sadistic fuck. I wouldn't be able to hang out with you and your cop buddies laughing about how tough they are for kicking the shit out of some poor guy or gal because I would be a bad cop.

And let me just say that I do recognize there are some bad (meaning good) cops out there, and I appreciate them. But they are too few and far between.


Kissimmee Kid. Excellent analysis. I am assuming you were speaking to Alito when you said “quit your complaining”. I wasn’t providing my opinion on the ruling. Just wanted to point out Alito’s language in his Dissent.

Anonymous said...

"we are willing to reconsider our positions when we are wrong"

So, I am flip-flopping!

Anonymous said...

I agree with 4 PM. I’m not down anymore for cops shooting people over bullshit. You pull your gun and shoot, you better be damn sure it’s perfect. I don’t want to hear “ I thought it was a gun” or any cowardly shit like that. If all lives matter then cops should act like it. If not, they can get another job more commensurate with their education and courage. Shooting people who commit misdemeanors in the back isn’t heroic.

Anonymous said...

Murder is murder. Facts: V ran away carrying a non-lethal weapon, POs had ID and could've arrested him at anytime without shooting, crimes were misdemeanors until the struggle when V ran away. This was machismo in action, cop unable to deal with fact V got away. So he shoots a guy in the back who cant hurt him. V pointing Taser is a hollow point, it's non-lethal and V can't turn to right and hit cop running to left of the V. That's physics. An excuse being used to justify homocide. Call it what it is...murder.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Runpole ...

You were completely wrong on your stock market call to go to cash and to short it going forward.

You must be getting murdered in that position. The short sellers are being forced on a daily basis to buy, buy and buy.

Regrets Sir? Sorry you didn’t buy on every dip instead?

Market up in November means 4 more years for President Trump?

Anonymous said...

Giving a man a gun and allowing him to use it in defense of us all does not give him a license to shoot at will. He should expect to be very carefully scrutinized over every decision he makes with it, not less, precisely because he gets to be issued that firearm and given the right to use it. Claiming someone is anti-police because they oppose police brutality is like saying someone is anti-parent because they oppose child abuse.

Rumpole said...

Nope- I just doubled my short position yesterday. You have eyes Grasshopper, but you cannot see the classic Bear rally. Keep buying my friend. Load up on Hertz (bankrupt and valueless ) Carnival (no customers, billions in liabilities) and the Airlines. Oh don't forget Google- shooting up but no ad revenue because of so many businesses going bankrupt. In fact- don't just buy with cash. Go on margin. Load up! Enjoy.

Robert Peele said...

Dear Monday, June 15, 2020 6:58:00 PM;

Cops ain’t ‘eroes, but, they ain’t blackguards either. They are just people employed to do full-time what any member of the community would do when faced with improper conduct.

Ethical police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. Read my principal number 7. “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Anonymous said...

I can't believe you posted the Kissimmee Kid's post. Please remove.

Rumpole said...

Do you find his ideas and use of words and terms troubling if not disgusting? So do I. Let’s shine the harsh light of truth on such vile ideas and let them wither in the public eye. That’s why I let it though.

Anonymous said...


"And let me just say that I do recognize there are some bad (meaning good) cops out there, and I appreciate them. But they are too few and far between."

The idea that most cops are bad is simply false. There are almost a million cops in this country, and on the order of ***hundreds of millions of encounters *** with the public every single year.

You are buying into the media narrative. There are absolutely bad cops. And almost every time a bad cop is recorded, it gets hyped on cnn etc as if there is an epidemic of bad behavior. It makes for great ratings. CNN will never show you bodycam of a cop NOT pulling the trigger and risking his/her own life to save a criminals life. That is not defined as news. Also CNN wont hype a black cop killing a white. Wont even show it. Wont print it. Nada. Cops, live PD, etc now cancelled so the other side can be stilfed out of existence.

Lets think about your inference that most cops are bad in another context. Think about the amount of murders committed in chicago. Think about how the murders ate disproportionately committed by blacks. Imagine a world where CNN relentlessly hyped only the murders committed by blacks, making it a point to note the race of the murderer in every story, and ignored the murders perpetrated by whites. And from all that, a bunch of white people in chicago said, man there is an epidemic of murders by black people, we should defund the black community because most of them are murderers.

That would be called racism.

And that is essentially what you are doing. You are stereotyping police. You are holding up the worst, and only the worst, and saying it allows you to come to a sweeping conclusion on the broader group.

I would suggest instead you go talk to a cop who you believe is not racist, and ask him or her if the police force as a whole is so corrupt we need to defund and start from scratch.

Or look at actual statistics. They show white cops are *** less *** likely than black cops to kill unarmed blacks. Statistics also show that based on the # of encounters police have with a particular race, whites are more likely to be killed by police.

There are hard facts here. The one fact that will never change: the more encounters with violent offenders, black or white, the more killings of offenders there will be. With huge #s of encounters, there will be killings.

If your goal is to reduce ***police*** killings (instead of reducing the killing of blacks by criminals), then we should have cops pull back from black neighborhoods. Police shouldnt focus on high crime areas, which are more likely to be inhabited by blacks. Then they will have less encounters with blacks, problem solved. But there will be a severe cost in the increase of murders committed ***by civilians.***

This is your preferred outcome?

Anonymous said...

Ok, but who's the KK? He's posting anonymous. I agree if someone put their name on that post they can be damned or praised for their thoughts. Not the same calculus when you're anonymous.

Kissimmee Kid said...

Pantywaists. Your political correctness is a smoke screen. Why are homosexuals subjected to discrimination? Because of sex. Each of these three cases prove it. Each of the workers was fine, when they were in the closet. The softballer was exemplary. Everybody liked the skydiver, and the mortuary worker was widely respected. Then, they found out what kind of sex they were having and they became pariahs. It is the sex!

A full forty percent of the population hates homosexuals. Why? It is the sex. We love a man who we think is straight, then stone him when we find out he is gay. What changes except knowing the type of sex the man is having? If it not the sex, why does anyone hate a homosexual? And don’t tell me it is the affect, there are guys that are gay, gay, gay, and you could not tell they were not straight unless you were with them in the bear bar. Straight-seeming gay guys still catch shit when they are out, or outed. You folks think it is fine to fire people for the type of sex they have, but I am the bad guy. Sad.

Anonymous said...

People of all color would learn a lot if only black people were permitted to be police officers, prosecutors and judges

Anonymous said...

Looks like the charge will be felony murder.