Posted on 05/24/2002 6:46:24 AM PDT by mrustow
Shhh! Just talking like that in (Constitution-free- zone) New York might get you arrested, fired from your job, beaten up ...
We have a local neighborhood here that has been over run during the last several years by black and hispanic hoodlums. I called the Sunnyvale Police department and spoke with a most arrogant detective to get a some sort of report on crime statistics.
Of course, the first thing he did was asked what my business was in asking for them. I responded that as a resident of Sunnyvale, I would like to have something that could indicate what crimes were occurring in what locations and what the police were doing about it.
Well, at this point, he became very angry, and said that this was police business. I asked the good officer that as a tax payer of this city that I was not obligated to this information? "That's right", he said, indicated that I may a knock at my door by their finest if I continued to pursue the matter.
As it turned out, the Sunnyvale Police had poor records and he was using the authority of his badge to keep me from getting this information.
SUPPORT YOUR POLICE!
I've had similar experiences in New York. And so, I've gone from defending the police to having contempt for most of them. They don't protect me, and won't let me protect myself. (I've been arrested for defending myself, though the charges would always be dropped eventually.) They want deference from civilians, but don't deserve it. The worst thing is the race issue. I've had to fight off attackers and would-be muggers several time during the last 15 years. Only one of these characters was white, and that time the time the cops were perfectly professional.
When the cops were called by witnesses who saw me being attacked, the officers that arrived were white, and the cops saw the attacker was black, most times the officers were practically peeing their pants. When the cops that arrived were black, they either showed immediate disgust to me, or actively aided my attacker(s).
I guess what I'm saying is that liberals and liberalism perpetuate racial unrest.
On June 19, 2000, when the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA championship, rioters celebrated by smashing shop windows, looting, and setting police cars on fire, causing millions of dollars in damage. The LAPD stood down, and city leaders bragged about the non-policing strategy.
Now someone explain to me why Americans only need guns for hunting and target-practice?
That was a rhetorical ploy the Left used as part of their gun-grabbing strategy. To tell you the truth, until a few years ago, I thought they were right. Growing up in New York, and attending college and graduate school here, I had never read the Constitution, and had been taught that there was no RKBA. I was in my thirties before I read the Constitution for the first time, and started reading up on its original meaning.
And while we're at it, why is vigilantism, by definition, a bad thing?
It isn't by definition bad, but in practice it usually is. I've heard of too many cases of people killing the wrong guy.
However ... let's get straight what we're (or at least what I'm) talking about here. "Vigilantism" means to me, that after a (usually violent) crime has been committed, a group of outraged people, who were not witnesses to the crime, get together to hunt down and punish the assailant. Since the vigilantes were rarely witnesses to the crime, they often grab and punish the wrong guy.
Defending oneself against an attack is not in my book -- or according to the law books -- "vigilantism." However, New York is a law-free zone. And so, I have been told by a supervising Legal Aid attorney, that I do not have the right to defend myself against an assault, and indeed, that I am legally obliged to run away. A few years ago, I met a Puerto Rican fellow who had the same notion, so I'm guessing he got it from Legal Aid, too.
In the (1984?) Bernard Goetz "subway gunman" case, Goetz was often referred to as "the subway vigilante." In fact, Goetz had defended himself against four men who were trying to mug him, one of whom was brandishing a screwdriver, which is a deadly weapon. If that makes him a vigilante, then I say, we can't have enough vigilantes.
Yes. And they are criticized even more sharply for the same behavior by blacks. For the past few years, whites have been moving back into Harlem. Black Harlemites have been in a state of outrage ever since.
It isn't by definition bad, but in practice it usually is. I've heard of too many cases of people killing the wrong guy.
I recall a story a number of years back about a neighborhood that repeatedly called the police about a crack house in the area. There were prostitutes hanging around it, and there were frequent gun fights around the house. People were afraid to go out of their houses. Drug deals were conducted out in the open. The police never did anything, saying they had to have positive proof.
One night, two of the men in the neighborhood saw that there was no one at the crack house. They took some cans of gasoline and burnt the house to the ground.
The men were arrested. At their trial they freely told the jury what they had done and why they had done it. The jury found them not guilty. I think the judge threw out the jury's verdict, though.
This is where I have to support vigilanties. In situations where the law has become impotent. I think people have the right to defend themselves if the police refuse to get involved.
I'm very familiar with the high-intensity anti-gun attitude in NYC, lived there three years. Worked around it, but with the full understanding of what would happen to me if caught carrying an unpermitted gun under the Sullivan Law (automatic six-months in jail.)
I don't live in NYC any longer and glad of it. In Kentucky we have concealed carry and a low crime rate, partly as a result of the bad guys not knowing who is armed. One aside: It's not a good idea to try and beat up someone who's armed, ya think?
I think it's already gone far beyond that. I think it is to the point where it "didn't happen" unless it affected IMPORTANT people. People with connections,and it matters not at all what race or religion they may be.
I'm convinced that's the goal.
Of course. How many times have we all heard a cop say "I AM the law!"? This isn't true of course,but most are too stupid to realize that what the majority of them really amount to are glorified security guards.
That might be a solution. If blacks prefer black policemen to patrol their neigbourhoods, why not?
There are some good groups out there stressing the importance of fathers and personal accountability in the inner cities....their stories don't sell papers (or hurt Republicans) like a riot or accusations of racism by Mr. Bond, Mfume or Jackson...but they're quietly making a difference.
Because it eliminates those overpaid prima donnas we call "judges",as well as their "go-fers",the police. The plain truth is the ONLY reason those people have their jobs at all is to keep the citizens from having to bother with this crap themselves. Look at both as janitors.
While you are at it,you might also want to wonder about why it is that the first thing the average black man does when he gets two nickels to rub together,is to try to find a while woman,and move into a white neighborhood. You might also wonder WHY he isn't criticised for not wanting to live around his fellow blacks.
I have no doubt I'm going to get flamed for writing this. I may even get banned again. Oh well.
The only way de-policing will work is if the Black community itself starts taking responsibility for keeping its miscreants in check. I suggest it all the time but there's little follow-through and there's only so much I, as a woman, can do about it outside of defending myself when necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.