As one salmon comes ashore, the line forms of those waiting to try for more/Craig Medred photo
CHITINA – The big, muddy, always raging Copper River had shifted its channel south offshore beneath the McCarthy Road bridge, and a lot of dipnet handle was needed to reach the current wherein traveled the upriver bound sockeye salmon.
A lot of handle, say 40 or 50 feet.
One miscreant among the dozen or so fishermen working the little beach just downstream from the bridge could have turned the fishing into a real cluster. Thankfully there was no such cretin in the multi-ethnic crowd more Asian than Caucasian.
Nets sometimes tangled. People occasionally tripped over the poles of others. A few people got bonked in the head by a high-flying handle. And yet the crowd remained polite and friendly.
If you follow the news much in this culture-war ravaged country these days, it would be pretty easy to believe this sort of thing just doesn’t happen.
I’ve struggled for days to write about the contrast between the rest of the world and this scene along the Copper while pondering whether it is odd that people in a country that spawned the term “road rage” would not only cooperate but get along so well in the competition to harvest fish, or whether it is odd that this friendliness and goodwill would seem somehow out of the ordinary.
Wrongheaded
I finally settled on the latter, and I’m blaming American opinion leaders and journalists.
Sometimes you have to wonder if they aren’t looking at the country through the wrong end of the telescope. The idea some of them push that the majority of Americans, or at least those in the red states these days, are prejudice, thoughtless or just plain bad is wrongheaded.
Alaska is one of those red states, but I have recently spent time in several others, and they didn’t seem much different from the one farthest north. Across rural America, at least, most people seemed to be getting along pretty well.
It’s hard to disagree.
No, the Un-united States of American ain’t perfect. Perfection is as rare as it is fleeting. Perfection is an always-moving goal. If you happen by chance to meet the goal as defined today, it moves on down the road tomorrow.
It’s moved so far now the ancestors of most of today’s Americans – no matter their color or ethnicity – would have a hard time comprehending not only how easy life in this country is the 21st century, but how comparatively fair this society in a world that is inherently unfair.
Though we tend to forget, homo sapiens remain governed in many ways by the laws of nature, and in nature there is no fairness. Nature is driven by random events that are inherently unfair.
One day you’re the moose cow peacefully grazing in the willows with your calf, and the next the lucky grizzly bear has stumbled onto the scene to render your calf unlucky and you childless.
And nature, as part of the evolutionary process, invariably produces some misfits.
As a result, the human world is home to a considerable number of sociopaths and psychopaths, and a lot of them end up as leaders of major businesses or as professionals.
Seven-point-six million is a big number if true, but it is still a tiny minority – less than 4 percent – of the U.S. population.
The other 96 percent is, by and large, made up of generally good folks though you might not notice with Democrats hating on Republicans and Republicans hating on Democrats these days.
And then there was Trump, who clearly gave better than he got with his “Crooked Hillary” rant and his declaration the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats. He did a nice job of dragging the politics of the country down into the sewer with the resulting assault on the Capitol by Hillary’s “deplorables.”
And now we’ve got the witch hunt for the Capitol protesters. Glenn Greenwald, one of the few journalists who still recognizes power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats are historically the greatest threat to democracy, has an interesting take on that worth reading.
I actually know some people who were in Washington, D.C., for the post-election demonstrations, and they aren’t deplorable. In some ways, they’re better people than some of my other friends who strain their eyes looking down their noses at what might be called the “less thans.”
Some of the most racist people I’ve ever met fit in this “better-than” group, though they aren’t the obvious “bad” racists; they are the “good” racists in the sense of the old English poet Rudyard Kipling’s belief it is the “White Man’s Burden” to deal with those “sullen peoples, half devil and half child.”
You know, the people who could never quite match up to the well-educated, well-to-do urban elite who never get any dirt under their fingernails from doing real work, the people who talk about the evil of racial divides in America and then cement them place with real estate.
Neighborhoods by color
The country’s major cities still tend to be zoned by race. People of color might now be sprinkled throughout the Chicago area, but there aren’t many white people living on the South Side.
The American melting pot that has made the “multiple-race population” the nation’s fastest-growing cohort of the citizenry, according to the U.S. Census, isn’t working so good in some of the country’s biggest cities. It seems to do better outside them, and here along the western edge of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, part of the largest wilderness reserve in the world, everyone seems able to melt together pretty well.
There were some obvious mixed-race couples among the small group working the beach. Maybe Alaskans are different from other Americans, or maybe the picture portrayed by the mainstream media is something of a distortion.
It is all too easy for big-city journalists to conclude the world they live in is a reflection of the rest of the world. And the world they live in is split into the safe part of the city – spell that w-h-i-t-e, predominately, and monied, obviously – and the unsafe part of the city, which is colored and poor.
Unfortunately, the situation in the rest of this country isn’t that simple. Crowded Loudoun County, Va. – the richest county in the country, according to Forbes – might be a lot whiter and somewhat safer than rural Wheeler County, Ga., – which Wikipedia reports as the poorest country in the U.S. – but the violent crime rate in the latter is still below the national average.
The two might be wholly different in a lot of ways, but that clearly doesn’t make one good and the other bad.
Loudoun County is home to 414,000 people, most of them crowded in close to busy Dulles International Airport. There are 13 cities or towns in the county with populations larger than the 8,000 residents of Wheeler Country. And there are the visual trappings of the elite: several golf courses, an equestrian center, a half-dozen or more stables, and a bunch of wineries.
A lot of Loudoun residents work for the government in the adjacent city – Washington, D.C.
The average income is under $31,000 per year. A third of the population is living below the poverty level. Less than 15 percent of the population has a college degree, about a quarter the number in Loudoun. And about 38 percent of the residents are black.
And yet the data would indicate Wheeler in a pretty peaceful place in the state the Democrat party had decided is now home to the devil because it decided it needs to make sure its voters are alive and legitimate Georgia residents. President Joe Biden declared the new Georgia requirement voters show a valid photo ID in order to obtain a ballot a scheme to deny people the right to vote.
Maybe President Biden could rid U.S. airports of the need to show a valid photo ID to get on a commercial airline to restore the old American right to travel or dump that pesky requirement you show a photo ID at your local gun shop in order to exercise your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
How to regulate voting is not a simple issue, and whether Georgia went too far or not far enough is something for Georgians to decide.
There is no doubt voting can be subject to fraud. Former Anchorage Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, a Republican who joined a Democrat-led coalition in the state House, is today facing felony charges connected to her hiring California Charlie Chang to round up Hmong votes for her in East Anchorage along with accusations she solicited voters outside her district to vote for her and her campaign tried to obtain absentee ballots for dead voters.
These are among the kinds of problems Georgia Republican lawmakers say they are trying to prevent while Georgia Democrats claim this is voter suppression. In another time, Georgia’s political wrangling would have been a relatively minor issue of state interest, but in the politically overheated climate of the U.S. today the legislation has become a national talking point.
Doesn’t it seem just a bit of an overreach to suggest that requiring people to legally identify themselves before obtaining a ballot is going to “taint future elections?” Or maybe we should all be able to vote in any state we want at any time and cast as many votes as we believe we deserve.
Or maybe I’m being too kind to Georgia because an old Alaska friend of mine now raises miniature livestock near a small town in the state that is threatening American democracy. His home is a couple hours drive southeast of Wheeler County.
A man who did a lot of time in Fairbanks; hiked, biked, skijored and snowmachined the Iditarod Trail from Knik to Nome; and spent most of his life kicking around the Alaska wilderness, he seems happy in Georgia.
He finds the state friendly and peaceful, but maybe that’s because it’s not the sort of place you’d find reporters for the Washington Post or the New York Times or CNN hanging out, though they’re happy to report on the evils of Georgia from far away or maybe parachute in for a story on the plight of the poor people living there.
It would have been interesting to witness their reaction to the scene along the Copper. It’s hard not to wonder if they would have noticed the cooperative nature of the fishermen there or focused on the bloody carnage of the many salmon being dragged a shore and beaten senseless in the savage spectacle of the brutal transition from fish to food.
Categories: Commentary, Media
The media narrative rarely matches reality nowadays, propaganda is a more accurate description.
Alaska is a special place. Most of us are judged on character and willingness to help one another. Very little racism except from what foolish politicians create by creating laws that treat groups different. Georgia isnt all peaches and cream regarding racism or rather the political policy and history that promote racism. Tough place. Especially around the larger cities . Police profile by color whoever they see . I was pretty surprised with what experience i had there. Didn’t like it much. Really cant be put in same comparison as Alaska. We have it so good it’s tough for our residents to fully recognize. That said – common sense requirements for voting must be enacted . Its good policy to have ID to reduce fraud. Most of the people that are educated on the issues can get an ID of some form . Democrats stance against it is gaslighting and just an effort to keep the chance to cheat and use poor ethics.
I am curious. Doesn’t a person have to provide a bank account to apply for and have their EBT card loaded electronically with funds? To sign up for a bank account don’t you need an ID? How many “disenfranchised” inner city dwellers have EBT cards and no ID’S? Also, when 6% of the population creates over 60+% of all the violent crime in America would you not call profiling smart policing? I mean, it is not like we are the Chinese (yet) who take their criminals behind the court house and shoot them. Granted, they don’t have a crime or rioting problem.
No, in America criminals are not taken out behind the court house & shot…we just have police that kill over 1,000 suspects a year “on scene” so no further court proceedings are needed.
Bryan, in a facist or communist state – profiling is smart policing . This country is allegedly not facist. Our country did not start on the principles of profiling. Innocent until guilty was our founders legal pretense. Weve gone to far down the road of police state and it must stop . Im fine with a very well funded police force but qualified immunity and profiling is factually unconstitutional and violates civil rights on many levels. Its time to pull back the shroud. Police state actions must not be order of day . Giving our police force acceptance of profiling is against all our national principles. Our greatest founders said our country is made for a principled people and if we loose our principles we loose our country. Principles set our people apart . We are the most giving nation on earth . According to stats . We must further our ethical principles to keep the high ground.
Steve , i just watched a video of a cop shooting/ killing a 19 year old woman about a week ago during a mundane traffic interaction . The police violence must stop regardless of its low percentage of American deaths . Our tax dollars should not pay to help kill fellow Americans.
DPR, if I remember correctly that 19yo woman you speak of shot the cop in the chest through the window first and rightfully deserved her dispatch. Usual story, career criminals like Floyd who are all of a sudden the “victim”. Just think, if the career criminal perp didn’t shoot at the cop she would be alive today. So, I say strike one for the good guys. I mean, one only has to look at gun violence statistics in NYC alone to see a pattern.
As for anybody who is “disenfranchised” trying to vote, well, they are liars. I know, you know it, Dems know it, and the world knows it.
Bryan, did you carefully watch the video of 19 yr old woman being shot? It was very unlikely the officer was shot at all . I call Bs . The video shows concussions of officers shots both noise and damage of car but no noise or damage from woman firearm . Also the officer never reacts as if hit by a bullet . Its a nonsense made up narrative to cover his behavior. He wasn’t shot . Lets say he was shot . In his protective vest which woman didn’t have . He had a vest and the civilians shot must have been very small caliber to show no effects whatsoever. He then executed her with 3-4 lethal rounds on a person not old enough to buy alcohol. Why was lethal force justified? He took a life when he could have stepped back and defused the situation. Or utilized other methods. Thats called poor policing. Its called execution. There is no excuse for killing someone that’s not even been convicted in court of law . Doing such is called unwarranted execution. Its very illegal under the constitution and very immoral under our set of founding ethics. It has to stop regardless of skin color which shouldn’t even be brought up when considering right or wrong. Poor government ethics will result in eventually tyranny and anarchy and eventual destruction of society. We must hold our police to high standards.
DPR, “come on man” as uncle Joe would say. I am not going to go into the cop shooting the 19yo. Makes no difference to me whether she had a pellet gun or a .45ACP. I mean, does it matter when a cop is drawn down on you? To say the cop should have done this or that instead of “executing” the person who shot at him first is a stretch. I mean why? You know, Darwin…. play stupid games and win stupid prizes..
But, I agree. Our police should be held to a high standard. I see no issues with that cop doing his job though. Don’t get caught up in the true fascists narrative.
Bryan, you might be right but we have to be careful not to loose site of right or wrong in confusing times . Especially during partisan stupidity. Pay the cops more so we retain high quality trained people but get rid of qualified immunity so they can be responsible for unethical actions. Im not going to fully second guess the policeman but the courts must be able to hold transgressors accountable to guarantee a just ethical nation. To accomplish that we need to completely remove qualified immunity. Anything less adds to the definition of police state. Something our nation must not become. Im going to go out on a limb – lets say your daughter did something that made a cop react with deadly force potentially that wasn’t warrented . What would be your view? Should the cop have qualified immunity even when their actions were determined to be questionable? We really don’t know what was said or done between the 19 yr old and cop . In our legal system death without trial is not technical justice and I think parents understand that . You have to ask yourself- what on earth triggers a 19 girl to shoot a cop . It’s either a false narrative or very extreme extenuating circumstances that need forced into court with a chance for justice on both sides. The fate of a young life should not be only in hands of marginaly paid cops
Shooting a gun at a cop warrants the use of deadly force on the part of the cop each and every time. If this is a question in anyone’s mind then you should have your mind examined.
DPR, watch a 1st Amendment Auditor on YouTube named “Bay Area Transparency”. He keeps the police in check and I think you would like it very much. Bit cringy for me but, he is well versed.
Did you see where a heroic citizen in Aurora, CO killed a cop killer only to be killed.by the cops who thought he was the killer? Terrible situation, but no rioting (wrong color) and the family, while upset, understood the mistaken identity. Accidents happen.
Hmm, as for my daughter….hmmmm.. well, honestly, if my daughter shot at a cop point blank because Obama’s War on Police, I’d be sad but how could I hold the cop accountable? That would be silly..
Steve o , extreme claims demand extreme proof . Proove that “every”time a cop is fired upon it warrants deadly force. Start with the cop acting illegally with violence and how that justifies him killing or using deadly force on an innocent person. Then go on from there . Remember you set the pretense. “Every”time deadly force is warranted. Start with legal justifications then see how they align with moral principles. Perhaps you are correct.
Bryan, you brought up horrible situations . Must have been very understanding people. I have to say your stance is hard core . I suspect you might feel differently if faced with such . But for now i will just sit with mouth agape and say you know of what you speak . My view would be that the cop had professional training and should have recognized the daughter as juvenile without a vest and made a valid attempt to defuse the situation without loss of life . I would have felt for whoever’s daughter it was. Both matter of opinion so you are equally correct. The issue is qualified immunity and how it reduces justice from being served and reduces odds of full facts coming out. I respect your opinion though
DPR,
It’s any easy equation, deadly force is met with deadly force…not much to prove there. Legal justification, are you kidding me? Please explain how being shot at isn’t legal justification for protecting your own life and the life of everyone around you.
You shoot at someone holding a gun you are an idiot if you expect anything different than return fire. If you want, nay demand, that those who police us meet deadly force with pillows or feathers then best of luck friend. If someone starts shooting at you are you going to take action or cower while pleading for mercy?
As you say “extreme claims demand extreme proof” prove that all police who shoot someone in the line of duty are executioners, as you call them.
Steve o , you lied . I never ever said “all”police who shoot someone in the line of duty are executioners . Lies dont help a discussion. Stop . I never said police are executioners. I said the particular officer in question appeared to execute the 19 year old with 3-4 lethal shots . She had no vest and no firearm shots were heard from her . ( to my hearing) ( facts unknown maybe she had a silencer) The officer could have stepped away from her and instead chose to kill her under unknown justification. When you shoot someone in vital body parts that’s trapped in a car without a bullet proof vest without trial and without proof of having been attacked thats execution . I didn’t even say he was specifically an executioner. I said his action was execution . (His action) not extrapolation to “all” police. Nor to he is an executioner. If you get rid of qualified immunity it’s easier to determine if what occurred was justified. Your insinuation that i said all police are executioners is just gross and a lie . Just gross steve. Steve o says – (deadly force met with deadly force). Dpr asks -does that not present the acceptance or justify return fire ? Maybe from anyone with their life under threat? Steve o s words appear to justify dpr stance that not all police killings are legal and they shouldn’t be accepted as justified. Steve o does not provide any form of proof that shooting at a cop warents cops return fire . Steve o has not looked at variables such as had cop unjustifiably already shot said victim, or was cop doing something illegal such as breaking and entering unannounced without warrants, or any number of other illegal acts that threaten life and those around, such as rape , kidnapping , robbery, ect ect . Steve o appears to think civilians have no right to protect themselves when their life or loved ones is in danger and should just accept police violence and being shot . Perhaps there is a misunderstanding steve o . Do clear it up . Maybe im completely wrong and don’t understand your position. To this point you have provided no legal or moral justification for warrenting deadly force from cop “every” time someone shoots at a cop . ( really what occurs is when some cops feel in danger regardless of fact they have taken the right to kill someone else and stolen that other persons right to life and liberty- thats the problem with qualified immunity is it assists questionable acts and makes it harder for justice to occur and for the truth to be teased out by the courts . It provides a questionable sheild ) There are many instances of cops doing illegal activity. Research them then provide your exact justification for saying “all” its ok to just say you over stated . We nearly “all” do it occasionally.
DPR,
We can agree that there is a misunderstanding and that you are completely wrong and don’t understand my position. You’ve taken to making up your view of what my opinion is instead of trying to understand what my opinion is you literally just made up a conversation in your last post. You apparently disagree when presented with deadly force that deadly force is justified. People are allowed to disagree, if we all agreed all the time the world would be a boring place.
You claim that this one cop executed this 19 year old (but isn’t and executioner) and you also say “extreme claims demand extreme proof” yet you provide no proof to support your extreme claim that this one (non-executioner) cop executed a person for some unknown reason.
Steve o , i will accept your statement that i dont understand your position. Please explain yourself. ( no conversations were made up by me but that’s besides the point so we will just settle on trying to understand what you meant and how I didn’t understand it so please clarify. Thanks)
DPR,
I guess I will believe you about not making up a conversation, it sure looks to my lying eyes like you did though. It’s that part when you literally wrote your name and what you think and then my name and what you think I think. Sure looks like a fabricated conversation on your part to me, but what do I know? Seriously tell me again what I know, since you know better than I do apparently…
I don’t know how to explain it any clearer than don’t shoot at people holding guns if you don’t expect to get shot back at…seems like a pretty obvious thing to me. But then I’ve never been executed by a non-executioner for not shooting at them, so what do I know?
Steve o , making up a discussion would be utilizing words or ideas that were not in play . What i did was called speaking or thinking in the third party . Taking parts of what each said and examining them together. Nothing was made up . You presented your words and ideas i put in my comment. . So yes your lying eyes . The biggest problem you create in your discussion is constantly deflect away from the important part of discussion such as how you made up that i said “all”cops . I Never did . You lied or made a mistake. A bad one . You also deflect from the fact that there are occurances where it’s reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm if a cop is inflicting illegal life threatening acts or abuse upon you. The cop in that situation has no right to kill you and if facts come out he will often go to jail. You made a mistake grouping all cop killings as reasonable or just if a civilian has to shoot first or second or whatever and should expect to be killed with justifiable lethal force if the civilian shoots back or first . . You said shooting at a cop warrents the use of deadly force every time . Which is false . When you say warrents deadly force every time . you imply its legal or righteous. A false statement there are exceptions and you didn’t allow for that . Instead of reasonably recognizing it was a simple accidental over statement you defaulted to Your modus operandi ,deflect ,deflect instead of saying- hey that’s right. Hadn’t thought of that . You focus on argument creation . A foolish endeavor. A super simple example of just defense with firearm is if a woman was being raped by a couple cops who she thinks are about to kill her and dump her and she shoots the cop in defense of herself but she has bad aim and the cop kills her with lethal force the cop is now legally liable for both rape and murder. It was in the news where two cops raped a young woman and dropped her off afterwards. So its not an improbable occurrence. Hundreds of cops are charged per year with illegal acts and watchdogs claim its only a fraction of the illegal acts that are committed that get reported. Steve Ya made a mistake but who cares . We all make mistakes. I do all the time. Just try not to waste everyone’s time with your deflection. Look harder at what’s written and try to understand it .
DPR,
You speak of deflection as you wander all around changing the subject and once again attempting to make the discussion about me, as you are wont to do. You still have yet to provide the proof that as you said “extreme claims demand extreme proof”. You said this cop executed this girl with no proof and instead of admitting your mistake you’ve danced around, avoiding your failure and instead you’ve attributed your thoughts to me in an effort to change the subject because you disagree with my opinion.
And just to be clear, you’re right I did mess up, I should have thought about every outlandish criminal act ever that any cop could ever commit just so I wouldn’t make the mistake of allowing DPR to try and find any wiggle room while avoiding calling a cop an executioner with no proof whatsoever. Also, as usual, engaging with you in any manner is proven to be a mistake because you’re still incapable of having an open and honest discussion without resorting to attacking those you disagree with, perhaps one day you will figure it out but apparently it isn’t today.
Steve o , say whatever makes you feel better. Keep it up buddy . I see you presenting better wisdom every day .
Thanks DPR, that means something coming from you. Still no extreme proof for your extreme claims of execution by cop?
Steve o , you were asked first for proof and showed none because you are master of deflection. Yet since he who serves is greatest 😉i will give mundane proof to you . You could have easily looked up the proof she was executed. The word executed usually pertains to killed by someone using the excuse of legal expectation or law . At least the dictionary allows one of its primary uses to be used as such . The girl is dead . We have fair proof of that . The cop killed her , we have video proof of that . The cop was acting under legal expectation . (claiming she shot first which is one of many actions that allows him to kill her with legal expectation ) Anyone can look that up . Therefore the killing meets the English definition of execution. Within basic perameters . There is your extraordinary proof . Dictionary , video and law . The important problem you refuse to even discuss as far as i can tell because you have ignored writing about it in this thread is that qualified immunity which reduces the odds of finding out if she actually fired first ( she didn’t because there was no sound of discharge and the cop never reacted as if hit by a bullet or even as if he was shot at ) but if it was found that the cop murdered her , qualified immunity would reduce the odds of justice being served. Which is very important in our country. Qualified immunity stimies justice. Instead of constantly deflect and blame you should think deaper into what’s being discussed rather than acting the troll and wasting time being argumentative. For argument sake . Thats the last gift i will give you in this thread so don’t expect a reply.
DPR,
Thank you for the gift, whatever it was, how very benevolent of you.
Your extreme claim was first in line, and thanks for finally providing what you think is extreme proof to backup that extreme claim. Your tortured explanation of what an execution is speaks for itself, this girl was not executed, she brought her own death upon herself by firing a weapon at a cop holding a gun. That the cop shot her isn’t up for debate, the cell phone footage from a distance away, seemingly through a car windshield makes that clear. If, as you now claim, the cop shot “under legal expectation” because he was shot at first then this wasn’t an execution, but an action that any reasonable person would have taken in defense of their own life and others around them…but especially a trained and sworn officer of the law.
Whether or not you can hear a gun shot fired from inside the car at or into the cop based upon on the cell phone footage from a distance away, seemingly through a car windshield while people are talking certainly isn’t extreme proof of any kind. In short, your extreme proof isn’t proof of anything atleast not anything to support your extreme claim of an execution at the hands of a cop.
I’ve already provided a response to what you claim is an extreme claim on my part, you disagree with it but it’s been asked and answered more than once. If you shoot at a cop or anyone with a gun you should expect to have return fire. That’s not an extreme stance, that’s common sense self-preservation and self-protection. If you want to have a conversation about qualified immunity, please feel free, don’t let me stop you.
As far as your continued insistence on making this and seemingly every conversation about me and what you perceive to be my many character defects, I will ask you, yet again, to please stop using such juvenile attempts to sway the conversation by attacking those you disagree with. Stick to the subject and the words written, there’s no need to debase yourself by attacking the messenger when you can attack the message.
DPR, purposely using CNN as a source. Because if anybody is going to lie about a police shooting it is the lying frauds at CNN.
“(CNN)A Michigan police officer shot and killed a 19-year-old woman Saturday after police said she shot at the officer near a Juneteenth parade, officials said.
The officer wasn’t injured.
The woman, who was not identified by police, allegedly fired at a Flint Police Department officer who was working a traffic point during the city’s Juneteenth Celebration Parade, the Michigan State Police said in a statement.
“Preliminary investigation indicates the officer, who was working a traffic point for the Juneteenth Celebration Parade, was fired upon by the lone occupant of a vehicle who drove up to him at the traffic point. Upon taking fire, the officer returned fire, striking the suspect,” state police said.”
Bryan, yes what you say is official narrative. It may very well be correct. Problem is the officer was not hurt so there is no public evidence of him taking fire except his word. No gunshot noise from 19 yer olds car ,no evidence of officer being struck by bullet in the vest or elsewhere. So no evidence to this point whatsoever. She did not get out of car and chase him down he approached her with gun drawn ready to kill her. He instigated the violence by approaching the car with a loaded aimed gun while she was cornered in a car . If you want to regain the reputation of peace officers you need to remove qualified immunity so justice can more easily and effectively be served accurately for all . Qualified immunity makes it harder to determine facts and work the truth out . Perhaps this officer did what was right. Maybe the girl was a wanted killer and she was shooting at him . We wont know unless and until investigations and court documents are done in full . With the roadblock of qualified immunity its nearly impossible to do a thorough lawsuit and investigation. Qualified immunity adds to police state actions and eventual downfall of our republic. It didn’t come into effect until mid late 1960s . It’s been abused ever since . It reduces trust in our law enforcement and trust in judicial decisions. It must go away. Please note im a staunch supporter of honest quality law enforcement. I support better funding for police to retain the best employees possible. Im against qualified immunity and against militarization of our police force and against no knock warrents and against using police entering homes on pretense of public safety without proper warrents in place for intrusion. I say increase police funding and dont make laws that cause erosion of trust and reduce respect for our honorable public safety officers.
DPR, it sn’t hard to figure out if the sole occupant of said vehicle fired a gun or not. Body cam footage, powder residue on the victims hands, eye witness accounts, bullet casings, the weapon, the bullet in itself.
Plus, the fact the Democrats storm troopers aren’t burning down Flint right now makes me believe the “official narrative”. I generally track with you, but this particular shooting isn’t helping your cause.
Bryan, maybe its not helping. ( apparently not helping) I thought it would help help because it hadn’t been politicized. Its not cnn or left wing/ blm versus right ect . Its just my observation that there is currently zero evidence the officer was shot so I thought people could look at it objectively. See the dangers of qualified immunity and how it shields poor police action which causes a rift nationwide. Apparently I need to do better.
Trying to understand you. So, since the 19yo shot at the officer and missed, the officer had no justification for discharging his weapon into said criminal or “executing” her as you say? Just silly. He jad every right and didn’t need to be an officer to defend himself. I fail to see the “dangers of qualified immunity” with this one. Plus, a 19yo is an adult and NOT a juvenile.
Also, ANTIFA, and BLM (and several Democrats) aren’t against the “right”. They are admitted Marxists who are against our country and Constitution. CNN is merely their propaganda mouthpiece. They are enemies of the people.
Bryan , the cops statement was he was hit in vest . Evidence of this is unknown. Also if he actually was shot or shot at I agree it’s possible his actions were justified. You misunderstood me there , though I truly think there alternatives to deadly force most times. Darts , better armor, more personnel, verball discussions , conflict reduction techniques, tasers , innumerable other conflict resolution methods without use of firearms . Gunfire into a 19 year old girl is pretty archaic method of conflict resolution and un excusable imo for whatever little thats worth . ( recap- if she shot first then yes he was legally just ) The question is was he shot at ? No gun fire other than his is heard , no bullet impact other than his is seen , no evasive action to avoid being shot at . Therefore no evidence to this point anyone but him discharged a firearm. If he was shot why did he get as close as possible to her window and shoot ? A reasonable person only gets up close if the other person is unarmed. If someone is shooting at you it’s illogical to step within 3 ft . To me it looks fishy. I call bs . My opinion is just opinion and not worth much but what’s important is justice. Qualified immunity makes justice less likely and has multiple times helped to steel the security and liberty of citizens. It encourages cops to use force because they know they cant easily be sued in civil court. This reduces justice and endangers civilians. Thanks for trying to understand me and I respect your opinion on qualified immunity. Especially as this case hasn’t reached the point of civil court. The problem is qualified immunity encourages officers wrong doing, makes it harder to remove bad ones , it discourages civil suits from ever being filed because lawyers assume odds of success are low , and the low odds of success and reluctance to file suit reduces odds of courts being able to expose facts – good or bad . This reduces justice and increases wrong doing. Dont take my word for it . Research the written arguments against qualified immunity for better recap. It’s about liberty and just nothing else.
As to cnn – blm- Marxism: yeah i hear you . What a mess . Qualified immunity isn’t about those issues. It’s about liberty, justice and public safety.
Bryan, just to be clear- removal of qualified immunity is in line with current libertarian and even old republican principles. Look it up. It’s nothing to do with Marxism / cnn / socialism ect . Frankly removal of qualified immunity reduces the odds our republic could fall to those sick institutions. Allowing qualified immunity to continue is actually enhancing the big government police state . A form of qualified immunity is what allowed Marxism to triumph in Russia and faciism to triumph in Germany. Sheilding government law enforcement from civil suits strengthens the arm of government doing ill things to its citizens. No one could buck the marxist police arm and no one could buck the arm of facist police . No one could sue them in a civil court for violations against their rights. Or their liberty. Our nation is being divided in part because of qualified immunity. A house divided upon itself cannot stand.
Good luck Bryan, tag you’re it!
DPR, again, I have issue with Qualified Immunity. Reminds of a case of the Good Samritan Law. A guy and a girl were in an accident..The vehicle was overturned. 2 men stop to help the guy and the girl. The 2 men remove the woman from the car and while returning to the vehicle to help the man the over turned car is hit by another car. The 2 men render aid to the original man in the car. He survives. He in turn sues the 2 good Samaritans because “they did not get him out of the car fast enough”. Thank God he lost. So, let’s face it, Democrats and “ambulance” chasing attorneys would be suing every cop for every little thing without Qualified Immunity. It is all part of the Democrat Marxist ideology. Sue everything and everybody..their goal is to overwhelm the Judicial, the Healthcare system, academic systems, etc.. until is all fails. So, I agree with Qualified Immunity because Democrats in general cannot co-exist in a civilized society. They are militant anti-Americans.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Bryan, i will have to research qualified immunity further. Maybe I missed something. Thank you .
Politics, fishing and hunting competition, brutality on an epic scale. I would like to recommend to you outdoor oriented friends a book which is the best I have read in a long time, “Blood and Treasure, Daniel Boone and the Fight for America’s First Frontier.” . Vivid…..Lively…A tale of lies, trickery, and brutal slaughter” says Wall Street Journal’s Christopher Corbett.
What are “the tubes” to which only 40% of Wheeler has access?
The “Anti-Asian” sentiment perpetuated by the media, if it exists at all, is more urban than rural and likely encouraged by the media’s coverage. I come from an area that has no diversity. My daughter is half Asian. She and her mother were welcomed and treated well even when those they met had no idea that they had anything to do with me. When black hunters and fishermen visit the area, they are as welcome as any other visitors. In my opinion, the media is the match that is the root of many of our country’s ills……..
Let’s add for clarity that the United States is the only country to have fought a civil war to end the Democrats Jim Crow Laws and slavery. Not to mention ending the Democrat led KKK, lynchings, and anti-civil rights for blacks and women voting, etc. Funny how all these Democrats of today spout off support to all these “victims” they created.. Create a crisis by defunding the police, set bail funds for rioters, and open the borders and then propose a bogus solution.. Sadly, the majority of “educated” America are ignorant after all. Bill Maher is right.
Sorry Dems, you can tear down your statues, but you cannot erase your racist past.