Madison Madness

Another “unarmed black teen” has been shot and killed by a white police officer, this time in Madison, Wisconsin.

As usual, the “teen” Tony Robinson is actually 19, making him an adult. It turns out that the “teen” had a prior conviction for armed home invasion. What I find striking is that he was sentenced to mere probation for this reprehensible crime rather than actually serve jail time. How is this possible? How can anyone believe that probation is an appropriate sentence for someone who entered another person’s home for the purpose of robbing them and brought along a loaded firearm in order to kill or incapacitate the occupant in the event of resistance? It is absolutely unbelievable.

And yet, the “teen’s” white mother insists that he has “never been a violent person.” Well, thanks to Officer Matt Kenny, he’ll certainly never be a violent person again.

But the most disturbing thing about this situation is the pathetic, groveling, teary-eyed statement from Mayor Paul Soglin. He uses typical, politically-authorized language to describe the incident and his liberal sentiments. Of particular note is the misappropriation of the word “tragedy.” Indeed, it is tragic that even in a society which bends over backwards to afford opportunities to those of socioeconomic disadvantage there are still so many people who are simply incapable of acting in a civilized manner. But Mayor Soglin doesn’t mean that this is a tragedy in that sense; he means that Robinson’s death — independent of context — is tragic.

A tragedy is something bad that happens and is unavoidable in that it transcends mankind’s abilities to manipulate the material world to its will. Committing an act of violence, attacking a police officer, and getting shot is not unavoidable. These events do not transcend our ability to manipulate material reality. They are the decisions of a single person of moral and intellectual bankruptcy and the consequences of those decisions.

Madison Madness

Living under the reign of terror

The Pelham Manor chief of police has narrowly escaped excommunication from the church of liberalism, instead being sentenced to mere reeducation. Please pardon the hyperbole.

Let us take account of Chief Mosiello’s crimes (all of which were perpetrated through private email communication):

1) Making “crude jokes stereotyping African Americans as frequently incarcerated and uninterested in working” [At least the former of these two claims is true]

2) Suggesting that “black women of having many children so they can collect welfare checks” [Well, it certainly isn’t because of their commitment to family life]

3) Claiming that “undocumented Hispanic workers get to keep all their off-the-books income” [This is obviously true]

4) Calling a young woman with eight kids “the new breadwinner in the family” because her mother gets social service checks to care for her kids [Whether or not this was a reference to an actual person, it’s objectively funny]

Furthermore, we have this:

The emails were brought to the board’s attention last year by retired police Officer Mark Lenci. Lenci, forced to retire last year in the face of disciplinary charges related to an arrest of a black man, said he confronted Mosiello with the emails in late December and suggested he resign only to have the chief curse him out.

In other words, Chief Mosiello was targeted for retribution by an officer he had forced out of the department for disciplinary reasons.

So a chief of police, making humorous references and observations regarding only certain behaviors of our “protected classes” (as opposed to making references to their intrinsic nature, which would be another matter) via a private form of communication, can face fines on the order of tens of thousands of dollars and mandatory “counseling” to realign his views with those politically authorized. This is the reign of terror.

Living under the reign of terror

The Bridgeton, NJ shooting

I’ve watched the video of the Bridgeton, NJ shooting in which Officers Braheme Days and Roger Worley shot and killed Jerame Reid following a traffic stop. Here’s what I saw (immediately prior to the shooting):

1) Reid disobeys Officer Days’ orders to show his hands

2) Reid says something about “the ground”

3) Officer Days says “No you’re not, no you’re not!”

4) Officer Days struggles with the car door, it looks like he is trying to keep it shut in order to prevent Reid from getting out of the vehicle

5) Officer Days backs suddenly away from the door in what appears to be a defensive posture, as if he anticipates Reid getting out of the car and attacking him

6) Reid exits the vehicle with his hands near his chest and makes no apparently hostile moves

7) Officer Days fires several shots at Reid. Officer Worley also fires at least one round at Reid.

Now, like in most situations, these events cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Officer Days knew Reid, and also knew he had spent 13 years in prison for firing a weapon at NJ State Police officers. Officer Days discovered a handgun in the vehicle during the traffic stop which is what precipitated the altercation and subsequent shooting. Also, while it’s pretty clear from the camera’s viewpoint that Reid was not armed as he exited the vehicle, Officer Days may have mistaken Reid raising his hands to his chest as the raising of a firearm. That last point, however, is highly speculative.

What I really cannot understand is why Officer Worley fired his weapon. From his vantage point, I doubt he could have seen Reid’s hands at all. Additionally, it looks like his rounds would have had to pass extremely close to Officer Days.

I don’t think this case is clear-cut. But based on the sequence of events showing Reid disobeying Officer Days’ orders, and the contextually relevant fact that Reid has a history of attempting murder of police officers, I find it difficult to condemn Officer Days outright.

The Bridgeton, NJ shooting