Tag: Crime

By on

Ryan Murphy, television’s master of horror, has a new series about the Menendez Brothers who famously killed their rich parents and tried to get away with it. Then when cornered pivoted to blame their parent’s deaths on the child and sexual abuse their father meted out. Sounds like a great pot boiler to me and just up Murphy’s street.

There is, however, one big problem with Murphy’s slant of the story. Murphy speculates that the two brothers had an incestuous affair. Murphy’s shows have always been free in throwing in gratuitous sex, especially gratuitous gay sex, so this should come as no surprise. But, then, this is also a “true” story. The Menendez brothers, in fact, killed Jose and Kitty Menendez. The brothers are still alive and are claiming it is a lie.

Murphy admits it is speculation, so where does this leave the story? Well as bullshit, pure unadulterated bullshit. If this were some little detail that was needed for dramatic continuity, maybe Murphy could be forgiven. But this is a bombshell. There may have been whispers in the past about an incestuous relationship between the brothers but never any confirmation. Murphy is saying it happened

Murphy could have fictionalized the story which would have given him a lot more leeway in how the story went. There would be no need to worry about strict adherence to the facts. But that isn’t what he did. He follows the historical information regarding the case to tell his story which would lead most viewers that this is a factual depiction.

There is even a case to be made for Murphy hinting at a relationship without actually coming out and saying it happened. The audience could then do their own speculation based on the facts. The facts are still largely followed but a certain mystery is added without actually stating it is truth. It would become part of the mystery of the story.

To veer off into speculation in the middle of a historical show, particularly speculation regarding the brothers sexual practices, is highly unethical. This is a bombshell. A bombshell that there is little proof to support and which the participants deny happened. The good news, at least for Murphy and his colleagues, is the Menendez Brothers are known liars and convicted murderers. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Trying to give their side of the story becomes a bit more problematic. Who are you going to believe — blood thirsty killers or a reputable member of the Hollywood entertainment community?

By on

I am sure the cops will come up with an explanation that gets them off the hook but the death of Roger Fortson is a perfect case to show the problems of the police, Black men and the 2nd Amendment. Forston was an Air Force man in his home when the police came knocking but, according to witnesses, not identifying themselves as police. Forston, who did not know they were cops, greeted them with a gun which is his right. The cops shoot him dead.

First, cops should always identify themselves as cops — every single time. This may have stopped the tragedy from going any further. I don’t care what the situation is because the cops, as in this case, might be at the wrong house. Given the high percentage of gun owners in the USA, if the cops break down someone’s front door without identifying themselves, they really should expect to be greeted with a person holding a gun. Isn’t this what the whole 2nd Amendment argument is all about — home owners protecting their homes. Identifying themselves as cops is for the safety of the cops as well as any potential suspects.

Then there is the fact that the cops had the wrong address. Yes, the cops can make mistakes but how rotten is it for the cops to break down a person’s door, find a man with a gun waiting for them and, because he is pointing a gun at them, the cops then shoot the person dead. All taking place within seconds of the police breaking down the person’s door. How do you balance a person’s right to protect themselves with the cops justified fear that the person holding a gun might kill them? Right now, it seems that cops have a little trouble with the constitutional right for Black men to bear arms (see Tamir Rice, John Crawford and Philando Castile).

It is completely irrelevant to argue, like Heather MacDonald frequently does, that black criminals are much more dangerous to the black population than cops. I suspect that this is also true that white criminals are more dangerous to white people than the cops. This should go without saying, right? Criminals are criminals. There should be an expectation that they are more dangerous than cops. Cops, on the other hand, aren’t supposed to be killing innocent people. Criminals are under no such compunction.

The fact that the mortality of Blacks at the hands of cops is small compared to Black criminals is changing the argument about a real problem. MacDonald says the problem is crime and if only Blacks understood that the police, in order to deal with crime, will have to take on Black criminals. Up to a point, she is correct. Criminals need to be dealt with but if you are afraid that your call to the police might get you or a neighbor killed, you might think differently. She conveniently ignores the historical experience that Blacks have had with the cops. If she considered it, it might help her understand why Blacks focus on cops killing innocent Blacks. They shouldn’t have to worry about cops killing innocent people.

If Blacks are afraid to ask the cops for help, they may depend more upon their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms which conflicts with MacDonald’s assertion that innocent Black people will have to endure even more contact with the police in order to stop Black crime. The cops then will face even more Black men with guns which then will lead to even more innocent black men getting shot. MacDonald assumes a level of trust that Black people just don’t have with the cops. She can complain all she wants about Black criminals being more dangerous than cops but in order for her plan to work Blacks have to see cops as allies and not enemies. They don’t and it is up to the cops to change this perception.

Until then, Black men will have to exercise their 2nd Amendment right with extreme caution.

By on

Heather MacDonald worries that Black on Black crime is the real problem plaguing the Black community and not a racist cop problem. That Black on Black crime problem is rooted in the racist cop problem eludes her. She thinks it is simply a matter of the Black community behaving better and all will be taken care of. She offers nothing in the way of tangible ways to make this happen and, because she ignores the racists cop part of the problem, her idea is doomed to failure even if she could trouble herself to make a tangible recommendation to address Black on Black crime.

MacDonald sees the problem quite narrowly — Blacks are committing too many crimes against other Blacks. Blacks need to stop worrying about bad cops and do something about their criminal youth then there would be no problem at all. But crime has been with us since humans began living together. It isn’t going to stop. Say a stranger attacks me on the street. I will certainly be pissed off about it and want something done. Now, if that person is a cop, I am going to be pretty damn upset about it. I just don’t expect much from my neighbors. They are strangers and I they can be half crazy for all I know. I do, however, expect cops to be helpful. I don’t expect them to attack me. They are public servants paid, in part, with my taxes. The worst I, as a white person, expect from a cop is that the crime will remain unsolved and I will never hear from them again. Some Blacks fear a different reaction from the police and that is a problem. A problem that impacts all crime in a Black neighborhood.

This doesn’t mean Blacks like their neighbors committing crimes against them or that they don’t see this as a problem. They may, however, have different concerns about the police. They may worry that the police will somehow entangle them in a bigger problem, or that the cops might overreact to what happened and, instead of solving the problem, they may kill someone or send someone to the hospital. They might weigh their decision about whether to involve the cops. Is this going to be worth any trouble I get from the police. This is an impediment to crime control. It also makes the police peculiarly ineffective in handling crime in Black neighborhoods. How can police solve crimes when the people they are serving mistrust them so much that they are circumspect in their interactions with the police? MacDonald never addresses this.

But she does point out that Black criminals are more dangerous to Blacks than the police. I don’t think anybody would argue with that. Criminals are more dangerous than the police. The problem here is that the police aren’t supposed to be dangerous. Fear of the cops is not an issue for MacDonald. For MacDonald, the data should convince Blacks about that, why should any other effort be made when the numbers prove her point. But, even if you assume the numbers are right and MacDonald is correct about Black on Black crime, it doesn’t really matter. Perception is everything. If the Black community believes Racism is still a problem then it is still a problem and the police need to change that perception. The burden for change rests firmly with the cops. Present day cops are paying the price for the racist behavior of their predecessors. It’s not fair to them but it is up to the present day cops to change this perception.

I also would argue that MacDonald is wrong about police racism being inconsequential and all in the Black community’s mind. Here is a sample of police racism which might explain this fear: the Central Park rape trial of innocent blacks, the drug arrests of innocent Blacks in Tulia Texas, George Floyd who died in police custody over a bad check, Tamir Rice, a twelve year old boy with a toy gun, who was shot and killed seconds after the police arrived — a grand jury decided not to take case to trial, John Crawford III who was shot holding a BB gun in a Walmart — a grand jury decided not to prosecute, an all white jury finding a white policeman not guilty of shooting of an unarmed black man, a white Louisiana judge using the N word, an Illinois cop fired for his racist posts, six Georgia policeman caught using the N word, a Mississippi police chief caught bragging about killing a black person, and just recently an Oklahoma sheriff was caught on tape talking about lynching black people. Why would Black people think they could be treated fairly when their daily personal experiences tell them differently? Why would Black people work with the police to stop crime in their neighborhoods when they are suspicious that these efforts might be used against them or their kids?

Black on Black crime is a problem but it isn’t “the” problem. Blacks have plenty of reasons to mistrust the police. MacDonald telling them this no longer is a problem in 21st Century America isn’t going to change many minds because Black people have a history with hundreds of years of police racism. Those feelings don’t just disappear overnight. In order to fight crime, Black people need to have confidence in the police. A lot of them don’t. Until then, MacDonalds complaint about Black on Black crime is an impotent response to a difficult and complicated problem and therefore meaningless.