What would Martin Luther King say about Furguson?

MLK would have deplored the violence and he would have deplored the killing of a young black man. But we have something even more precise. MLK spoke in 1961 in St Louis, only a short distance from Ferguson. He said, “Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58 percent of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards. We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

There are lots of streets named after Martin Luther King, lots of schools and monuments. But let's remember his words too.

Also remember that MLK relied heavily on the rule of law and respect for the law. We are well familiar with the times when the authorities acted dishonorably. But MLK never lost faith in the rule of law and the fundamental decency of the American people, even of his enemies. Without his leadership, the civil rights movement would not progressed as successfully or as rapidly. We don't see many leaders like him and there is nobody worthy to take his place today. Too bad. Some folks in Ferguson could use the wisdom.

Posted by Christine & John at November 27, 2014 11:25 AM
Comments
Comment #386173
MLK relied heavily on the rule of law and respect for the law

You can’t whitewash MLK like that. Reread his letter from the Birmingham jail. MLK had no respect for laws when he considered them unjust, which is why he lead a movement prefaced upon civil disobedience. Simply put, MLK was a criminal. He broke the law, which is why he found himself in Birmingham’s jail in the first place.

Rioters in Ferguson and elsewhere break the law for the same reason. They feel they that the system on which our laws rest is unjust. You and I may look at what happened and conclude that the rioters are wrong to think injustice has been served to them, but they don’t look at it that way. Polemics claiming MLK would respect and obey laws he felt were unjust won’t persuade anyone.

If we want to prevent riots in the future we need to fix this perception of injustice in our law enforcement and court systems. Even if the systems are mostly just today, there is definitely plenty of room for improvement and that is what we should be talking about, not the petty crimes of some rioters.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2014 7:07 AM
Comment #386175

IMHO, I don’t think it has anything to do with justice or injustice. It has to do with “free stuff”. The Democratic Party, with the help of many Republicans, have created a class of people who live off free stuff and entitlements. They not only live off government handouts, they believe they deserve the handouts. Watch the videos of these people running out of the business establishments with armloads of stolen property; that is not justice you see on their faces. Watch the videos of the contorted faces of those busting windows and burning businesses, and the profanity spewing forth from their mouths, it’s not about justice. It’s about anger; the belief that someone else owes them. Instigators like Sharpton, Jackson, Holder, and even Obama; have fed the belief that America has been unjust to them.

The question is not what MLK would think of them; but what they would think of MLK. In todays liberalism, MLK would be an “Oreo”, he would be treated like other black leaders who speak with a voice of reason. MLK would think today’s integrated America was a complete success compared to what he came from. The Democratic Party has the most to gain by continued race problems in America. They play blacks like an old fiddle.

Have you ever heard the left become outraged when anyone questions their patriotism or their lack of support for the police; and yet it is the left who is first to condemn the military and the police?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 27, 2014 8:15 AM
Comment #386178

Warren

He peacefully protested the rule but respected the rule of law. He used the law. He understood that in America he could us law and the fundamental decency of the American people in the long run. A guy using his tactics would have lasted about ten minutes in Stalin’s, Russia, Mao’s China or even an average Republic in the old days.

The rioter who break the law in that way are always wrong. King worked very hard to make sure that people did NOT react with violence. He understood that violence or even the talk of it would destroy his moral position.

King resisted laws that were unjust. The laws in this case were not unjust. Even if those who take an extreme anti-cop position would have to admit that the situation is unclear. This is not Selma or the Montgomery. Justice is not clearly on the side of the protestors and when they behave badly they lose whatever moral suasion they had.

I am also a little suspicious of anybody who demonstrates his profound anger by robbing a liquor store.

Beyond all that, let’s talk cynical strategy. The Michael Brown incident is a poor choice. Civil Rights leaders were careful to choose Rosa Parks as their avatar. They rejected earlier example, who were less sympathetic. Brown is not at all sympathetic. He was behaving in thuggish ways minutes before the incident and the evidence point to him acting thuggish to the cop. King would never have chosen to use this. As he words imply, he would have deplored Brown’s actions and the rioting.

Posted by: C&J at November 27, 2014 11:07 AM
Comment #386222

The thing about the law, and this is what MLK did in breaking it, is that often it doesn’t seem wrong to people because they don’t see it in action. It’s easy to live with injustice if you’re not confronted with it, even if yours is the group confronted with it.

But it is breaking the law. One thing to be sure, though, and this is where I find what Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden to be less than admirable, you have to be willing to take the consequences of your actions as part of your protest.

These people? I suppose some people feel they need to destroy something, hurt somebody because they’re angry, but I believe the vast majority of the Protesters were peaceful.

If you listened to what too many on the Right say, you’d miss that. Listen to what they say, and they’re all burning down business, they’re all destroying cop cars, they’re all running riot.

Reading those comments just makes me feel like I just waded through an open sewer. People who likely denied that racism had anything to do with their opposition to Obama turn around and talk about black people “chimping out”, talk about hand-outs and free stuff.

Meanwhile, the statistics will tell you that there is a real imbalance between the way crime is treated when its whites who commit them and when it’s blacks who commit them. Black people aren’t imagining the difference! If you think you can have that inequality, that level of difference in treatment, and not produce a sense in some that the rule of law is not being applied consistently, then you’re kidding yourself.

It’s time to stop patronizing these people, time to stop employing double standards.

Most importantly, it’s time to stop treating them as if they’re liable for the behavior of the criminals among them. Yes, they should try and behave the best they can as a group. But in the end, you can’t stop the criminals and psychopaths among us from being what they are, and if we let them rule how we treat whole classes of people, then all we do is confirm their twisted point of view.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2014 1:52 PM
Comment #386225
A guy using his tactics would have lasted about ten minutes in Stalin’s, Russia, Mao’s China or even an average Republic in the old days.

Similar nonviolent resistance movements have proven to be successful even though they were conducted inside authoritarian regimes. Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, the original 2011 demonstration in Tahir Square to name a few.

King resisted laws that were unjust. The laws in this case were not unjust.

You and I may agree the laws are unjust, but the rioter does not. Like King, the rioter believes he is resisting an unjust legal system with the only tools available to him. If we want the rioter to respect the rule of law, we must convince him that our legal system is just. When we acquit murderers like Zimmerman, it does not help convince anyone that justice is being served.

The Michael Brown incident is a poor choice
I agree completely. I have already stated on this site that I am entirely convinced that Wilson was justified to shoot Brown because Brown posed a threat to Wilson’s life. It is definitely a poor strategy for the anti-racism activists to wave this case as a banner when there are much more deserving incidents to be discussed. The comparison to Claudette Clovin is apt.

Let us instead discuss the many other incidents that have prompted people to lose faith in the justice system. Consider the incident a few months ago involving Chris Lollie. That man was tased and arrested by officers because he refused to identify himself even though Minnesota has now law requiring anyone to identify himself unless without probable cause. Police were called in the first place because he sat on a public bench near a bank so probable cause was certainly absent.

Respect for the law is a two way street. If the cops don’t obey the law how on earth can we expect civilians to do so?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #386226

Some are comparing civil disobedience with rioting and mayhem. Even liberals understand the difference although some won’t admit it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2014 5:34 PM
Comment #386227

So Zimmerman should have been sent to prison, even though there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him, for the sole purpose of appeasing black rioters?

Since you mentioned Minnesota; don’t you find it interesting that all the violations of civil rights happen in Democratic controlled states or cites?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 5:53 PM
Comment #386228

I find it interesting that the worst violations of civil rights occur in the former slave states and border states of the Confederacy.

Posted by: phx8 at November 28, 2014 5:57 PM
Comment #386229
So Zimmerman should have been sent to prison, even though there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him, for the sole purpose of appeasing black rioters

No, Zimmerman should have been sent to prison because there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law.

Since you mentioned Minnesota; don’t you find it interesting that all the violations of civil rights happen in Democratic controlled states or cites?

I could have just as easily mentioned LeVar Jones, who was shot in South Carolina while retrieving his driver’s license. This is a problem that plagues police forces everywhere. However, I would not be surprised that racism against African-Americans occurs more often in states that typically vote Democratic because those are the states likely to contain African Americans. This is not to say that police forces elsewhere are free of racism, but they may have fewer opportunities to express it. Also, there may be a difference between urban and rural African-Americans at play.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2014 6:01 PM
Comment #386230

Most would consider being murdered a violation of their civil and constitutional right to life. The murder rate per capita in some of our large Northern cities dwarfs that of most of the South.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2014 6:03 PM
Comment #386232

You are correct Royal, and once again phx8 shows his ignorance.

>However, I would not be surprised that racism against African-Americans occurs more often in states that typically vote Democratic because those are the states likely to contain African Americans.Warren Porter, have you ever traveled through the southern Bible belt states? However, I said Democrat controlled states or cites. Most large cities are Democrat controlled. They are also the urban areas in with Democrats have crowded blacks into housing projects.
LeVar Jones, who was shot in South Carolina

And the State Trooper was fired and charged with “assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison”. So, even though the trooper violated the law, the rule of law worked, right?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 6:36 PM
Comment #386233

Royal,

Violent crime generally is higher in the South. http://www.businessinsider.com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9

You might also want to check out this article on the what cities are the murder capitals of America. Notice those southern cities. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/14/despite-recent-shootings-chicago-nowhere-near-u-s-murder-capital/

Posted by: Rich at November 28, 2014 6:41 PM
Comment #386235

Rich, every city is Democrat controlled, with tougher gun laws than rural areas. So why is it that the Democrat controlled cities, with stricter gun laws, have the most murders? And why is it that civil rights violations occur in Democrat controlled areas?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 7:01 PM
Comment #386236

Warren Porter, let me get this straight; the left says the legal system failed in Ferguson because Wilson was not charged with murder, and Zimmerman was charged with murder, but because he was found innocent, the legal system once again failed? This can only be understood by the illogical mind of a liberal.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 7:07 PM
Comment #386237

From the link Rich provided…

” (Fair warning: The FBI stats are compiled from reports by local police agencies that serve populations of at least 100,000, and for various reasons — including the fact that not all agencies reported data every year — can be difficult to compare meaningfully across cities or time periods.)

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2014 7:20 PM
Comment #386238

This can only be understood by the illogical mind of a liberal.
Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 7:07 PM

You are right Sam. Logic, common sense, and truthfulness is not in their bag of tricks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2014 7:22 PM
Comment #386239
every city is Democrat controlled, with tougher gun laws than rural areas.

Gun laws are stricter in Richmond, Birmingham and New Orleans than in New York & Boston? Prove it.

Re: Comment #386236

A working justice system convicts guilty men and acquits innocent ones. George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin; he should have been convcited. Darren Wilson did not murder Michael Brow, he should not have been convicted. The justice system worked properly in the latter case, but not the former. Capisci?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2014 7:24 PM
Comment #386241

“The justice system worked properly in the latter case, but not the former.”

In Warren’s not so humble opinion.

Tell us Warren how you “feel” about the acquittal of O.J. Simpson.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2014 7:37 PM
Comment #386243

I view both Zimmerman and Simpson the same way:

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/008535.html#368126

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/008536.html#368918

Maybe I’ve mixed up my words somewhat. I’ve written before that a well-functioning justice system will occasionally acquit the guilty. I still believe that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2014 7:43 PM
Comment #386244
Gun laws are stricter in Richmond, Birmingham and New Orleans than in New York & Boston? Prove it.

I don’t have to prove this, because it’s not what I said. I said democrat controlled cities have stricter gun laws than rural areas. Democrats try to enforce some kind of gun control wherever they govern; that’s a fact. New Orleans was where the Democrat controlled police tried to disarm the citizens during Katrina…remember? The courts had to intervene and for the city to give back their guns.

So the left has no confidence in the rule of law, no matter the outcome? Since you are a liberal, I’m placing you in the liberal group calling for the murder trial of Wilson. You can say you don’t believe he’s guilty, but I don’t accept that. Every liberal on WB, and especially Daugherty, when speaking of conservatives beliefs, says “you” or “You Guys”. Therefore I must say “you guys” want Wilson charged. Which brings us back to the rule of law; the law failed in finding Zimmerman not guilty, and the law failed in not charging Wilson. It seems “you guys” can’t be satisfied, no matter the outcome.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 7:44 PM
Comment #386247
I don’t have to prove this, because it’s not what I said. I said democrat controlled cities have stricter gun laws than rural areas. Democrats try to enforce some kind of gun control wherever they govern; that’s a fact. New Orleans was where the Democrat controlled police tried to disarm the citizens during Katrina…remember? The courts had to intervene and for the city to give back their guns.

Rural areas have fewer murders for reasons that are irrelevant to gun control laws. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison you must compare an urban area in a state with strict gun control (Boston, Massachusetts for example) with an urban area in a state with liberal gun regulations (Birmingham, Alabama for example). Where is the crime rate higher?

So the left has no confidence in the rule of law, no matter the outcome?
I think everyone will agree that we cannot be confident in the rule of law if we believe people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If we grant Whites certain privileges that we deny to nonwhites then that is unjust. If law enforcement violates the law in order to harass nonwhites, that is unjust. In order to earn peoples’ confidence, law enforcement has an obligation to proactively demonstrate that they are committed to upholding the law as it is written and that they are also committed to treating all citizens equally, regardless of the color of their skin.
So the left has no confidence in the rule of law, no matter the outcome? Since you are a liberal, I’m placing you in the liberal group calling for the murder trial of Wilson. You can say you don’t believe he’s guilty, but I don’t accept that. Every liberal on WB, and especially Daugherty, when speaking of conservatives beliefs, says “you” or “You Guys”. Therefore I must say “you guys” want Wilson charged.

Stephen has hit you in a sore spot, has he not? I will say this loud and clear that I denounce any statements made by any of my colleagues that suggest that Darren Wilson was guilty of any crime. Capisce? Good!

It seems “you guys” can’t be satisfied, no matter the outcome.

I’m satisfied with the outcome. Even with Zimmerman, I’m fine if a few guilty men occasionally weasel their way to an acquittal. The problem is bigger than just these two cases though. First of all, in both cases there was a great deal of foot dragging even to have these homicides investigated thoroughly in the first place. The prosecutor in Sanford for a long while refused to even charge Zimmerman. Second of all, there are miscarriages of justice everyday in this country. Look again at the example of Chris Lollie, who was tased and arrested even though he violated no law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2014 8:39 PM
Comment #386248

Sam,

I am a liberal and don’t think that Wilson should be tried for murder based upon what I have learned about the circumstances of the shooting. In hindsight, Wilson probably should have waited for backup after the initial confrontation. Brown wouldn’t have been that hard to track. But that is second guessing an officer who had just been attacked and had been in a struggle over his gun.

I also don’t think that Zimmerman should have been convicted of murder for the death of Martin. Nobody knows what actually happened in the confrontation leading to Martin’s death. Who threw the first punch? Whose voice was screaming for help? Those were questions that couldn’t be answered by the evidence.

Posted by: Rich at November 28, 2014 9:02 PM
Comment #386249

Warren and Rich; so what you both are saying is that not all liberals think alike? You could have fooled me. So why do you say all conservatives think alike?

Warren, there was so much double talk concerning whites, blacks, and the rule of law, I’ll have to get back with you tomorrow. It’s time to rest.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 28, 2014 11:48 PM
Comment #386251
So why do you say all conservatives think alike

This was never said. Occasionally people use heuristics and make assumptions. The way one should respond in such a case is to calmly renounce whatever position has been falsely ascribed to oneself. You falsely associated me with the activists protesting the outcome in Ferguson. I calmly told you that wasn’t my belief. Why are we still talking about this?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 11:49 AM
Comment #386253

Warren; it’s easy for you to say we should calmly renounce the position, but you know as well as I that the left does not accept this. To the left, all conservatives think alike and it is because we have been brainwashed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. You mayor you may not be an exception to the rule. I believe I have read your comments, lumping all conservatives into the category of being followers of Limbaugh and Fox.

Regarding your earlier comments:

I don’t have to prove this, because it’s not what I said. I said democrat controlled cities have stricter gun laws than rural areas. Democrats try to enforce some kind of gun control wherever they govern; that’s a fact. New Orleans was where the Democrat controlled police tried to disarm the citizens during Katrina…remember? The courts had to intervene and for the city to give back their guns.

Rural areas have fewer murders for reasons that are irrelevant to gun control laws. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison you must compare an urban area in a state with strict gun control (Boston, Massachusetts for example) with an urban area in a state with liberal gun regulations (Birmingham, Alabama for example). Where is the crime rate higher?

So the left has no confidence in the rule of law, no matter the outcome?

I think everyone will agree that we cannot be confident in the rule of law if we believe people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If we grant Whites certain privileges that we deny to nonwhites then that is unjust. If law enforcement violates the law in order to harass nonwhites, that is unjust. In order to earn peoples’ confidence, law enforcement has an obligation to proactively demonstrate that they are committed to upholding the law as it is written and that they are also committed to treating all citizens equally, regardless of the color of their skin.

Warren Porter, I think where we got mixed up was when I mistakenly attributed phx8’s to you:

I find it interesting that the worst violations of civil rights occur in the former slave states and border states of the Confederacy.

Posted by: phx8 at November 28, 2014 5:57 PM

My next comment, “Warren Porter, have you ever traveled through the southern Bible belt states? However, I said Democrat controlled states or cites. Most large cities are Democrat controlled. They are also the urban areas in with Democrats have crowded blacks into housing projects”, should not have been directed at you.

I think this led to some confusion. You’re next comment was:

Rural areas have fewer murders for reasons that are irrelevant to gun control laws. If you want to do an apples to apples comparison you must compare an urban area in a state with strict gun control (Boston, Massachusetts for example) with an urban area in a state with liberal gun regulations (Birmingham, Alabama for example). Where is the crime rate higher?

I was not comparing rural areas with rural areas of other states. I was comparing rural areas of the southern states, since the comment was made, “the worst violations of civil rights occur in the former slave states and border states of the Confederacy”. The rural areas of the south are equally populated by blacks and whites, hence my question, have you ever driven through the south. The rural areas (normally Republican controlled) have less gun laws than the cities (normally Democrat controlled), and also have less crime.

It would be silly to compare rural areas of Mass and other New England states, because the black makeup of northeastern state’s rural areas is not the same as the southern states.

Back to my original point, Democrat controlled states and cities, with stronger gun control laws, have more crime than Republican controlled states and cities.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 12:35 PM
Comment #386255
I think everyone will agree that we cannot be confident in the rule of law if we believe people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. If we grant Whites certain privileges that we deny to nonwhites then that is unjust. If law enforcement violates the law in order to harass nonwhites, that is unjust. In order to earn peoples’ confidence, law enforcement has an obligation to proactively demonstrate that they are committed to upholding the law as it is written and that they are also committed to treating all citizens equally, regardless of the color of their skin.

This is a blanket statement that has no basis for proof. Can you site where the Constitution or any US laws for that matter grant whites certain privileges that are denies to nonwhites? If it is being done, it is a violation of the law, but certainly not a reason to say you “have no confidence in the law”. It now becomes a violation of those who administer the law, which again brings us to those states and cities who are controlled by Democrats. We have seen in Obama and Holder a complete disregard for the law. So the democrat leadership of cities and states that disregard the law are in full compliance with Democrat disregard for the law from the very top positions.

As I stated in another post; the majority black population of Ferguson could change the laws, they could put their own people in the positions of leadership, but they don’t get involved in politics. Why; because Democrats are already running for office and the only ones they can vote for is the Democrats already running. Which shows us that the Democratic Party cares nothing for their constituents. The Democrats in DC have been in control more often than not for the past 60 years, and the minorities still face the same problems. The left is telling them, “vote for us, and we will make your life better”, and they have been telling them the same thing for 60 years, and yet no change. At some point, you would think the blacks would say “enough of the lies”.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 12:53 PM
Comment #386256
I believe I have read your comments, lumping all conservatives into the category of being followers of Limbaugh and Fox.

I am confident you have me confused with j2t2.

“the worst violations of civil rights occur in the former slave states and border states of the Confederacy”

phx8 is talking about urban areas, not rural ones. Southern cities are mostly under the control of conservative Republican governors/legislatures. These are the cities with the most crime.

It would be silly to compare rural areas of Mass and other New England states, because the black makeup of northeastern state’s rural areas is not the same as the southern states.
I was discussing a comparison between urban areas in both regions, not rural ones. However, a comparison of rural areas can still yield some useful information. Rural Massachusetts has a lower crime rate than urban Boston even though gun control laws are the same. This tells us that urban areas have more crime than rural areas for reasons unrelated to gun control. This means you cannot conclude that the greater crime in a southern urban area compared to a southern rural one is a result of gun control laws.

Also, there is a lot of nuance you are avoiding here. Gun control is not a binary phenomenon and you cannot assume that all relationships are monotonic. It is quite possible that a little bit of gun control lowers the crime rate, but too much will cause it to increase again.

Lastly, I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that most gun control legislation is enacted at the state level. Municipalities such as New Orleans or Birmingham may have Democratic local governments, but they still have liberal regulations regarding firearms due to the laws passed by their respective state governments.

Democrat controlled states and cities, with stronger gun control laws, have more crime than Republican controlled states and cities.
This yields no conclusions because you are not comparing apples to apples. No law will ever make the crime rate in Birmingham lower than the crime rate in rural Alabama. No law will ever make the crime rate in Boston lower than the crime rate in rural Massachusetts. The reason for the disparities in crime are inherent to the nature of urbanization. Stop baiting people with misleading facts. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 1:13 PM
Comment #386257
phx8 is talking about urban areas, not rural ones. Southern cities are mostly under the control of conservative Republican governors/legislatures. These are the cities with the most crime.

This is not what he was saying, in fact, he lumped states as those bordering southern slave states.

I was discussing a comparison between urban areas in both regions, not rural ones. However, a comparison of rural areas can still yield some useful information. Rural Massachusetts has a lower crime rate than urban Boston even though gun control laws are the same.

This still won’t work, because rural areas in Mass do not contain the same ratio of blacks to whites as the southern states do.

This means you cannot conclude that the greater crime in a southern urban area compared to a southern rural one is a result of gun control laws.

Yes I can; statistics conclude that areas with more gun control laws have more crime than areas without gun control laws.

In 2000, George Soros’ Open Society Institute released a report it dubbed “the first comprehensive state-by-state look at gun laws in the United States.” The institute compared every state’s gun laws systematically and gave states negative scores to indicate limited gun control laws or what the institute considered to be “undermining” federal law minimum standards. This report claimed that Massachusetts had the best gun control laws in the nation, while Maine had the absolute worst.

Unless something has changed substantially in the last decade, the FBI’s latest crime statistics show that Maine actually had the fewest violent crimes and aggravated assaults of any state in the nation last year, while Massachusetts was 12th highest for aggravated assaults and 15th highest for violent crimes.

http://www.infowars.com/gun-control-laws-will-not-prevent-crime/

Or the Chicago University finding that allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime.

It is quite possible that a little bit of gun control lowers the crime rate, but too much will cause it to increase again.

Warren, this comment only proves that Democrats have not been able to find that balance. Because all Democrat controlled cites have high crime rates.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:49 PM
Comment #386258
Can you site where the Constitution or any US laws for that matter grant whites certain privileges that are denies to nonwhites?

No. Hence the word IF. I was not trying to be controversial. By the way, I do have confidence in the law because I know that if I interact with the police that I will be treated justly. However, I have this trait called empathy. I can understand how someone else might feel if they didn’t think the police would treat him or her in such an interaction.

If it is being done, it is a violation of the law, but certainly not a reason to say you “have no confidence in the law”.

By “the Law” I mean the legal system as a whole and not just what has been written down, but also the people responsible for enforcing it.

It now becomes a violation of those who administer the law, which again brings us to those states and cities who are controlled by Democrats.
If you wish to allege this a purely a Democratic problem then by all means so. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. Nevertheless, these incidents have occurred in both Red & Blue states. If you talk to someone who is nonwhite, I am sure they will tell you that they can feel that they are being treated unequally in jurisdictions of all political stripes.
We have seen in Obama and Holder a complete disregard for the law. So the democrat leadership of cities and states that disregard the law are in full compliance with Democrat disregard for the law from the very top positions.
If you are going to allege a cause and effect relationship between the recent immigration order and unequal treatment of minorities by the police, you should remember that causes must precede effects. Unequal treatment of minorities did not start last week.
because Democrats are already running for office and the only ones they can vote for is the Democrats already running.
Proof? Technically, these offices are all nonpartisan, so there are no party based restrictions on who can run. I already know that the mayor and at least one council member are Republicans (James Knowles III & Mark Byrne). I have no reason to believe the others are all Democrats. But even if the entire city were controlled by Democrats, that would not demonstrate that there isn’t a problem. Democrats are not immune from racial prejudice.
At some point, you would think the blacks would say “enough of the lies”.
I can only conclude that these people believe that Republican governance would be much worse. DC has special problems because it is unable to fully govern itself independently of Congress. If you want an example why don’t we talk about Boston? It’s a large city that has not had a Republican mayor since the Great Depression yet is run reasonably well (not perfect, but quite good). Oh right, I forgot, only you are allowed to cherry pick cities to prove a point. Never mind about Boston. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 1:50 PM
Comment #386260
phx8 is talking about urban areas, not rural ones. Southern cities are mostly under the control of conservative Republican governors/legislatures. These are the cities with the most crime.

This is not what he was saying, in fact, he lumped states as those bordering southern slave states.

I was discussing a comparison between urban areas in both regions, not rural ones. However, a comparison of rural areas can still yield some useful information. Rural Massachusetts has a lower crime rate than urban Boston even though gun control laws are the same.

This still won’t work, because rural areas in Mass do not contain the same ratio of blacks to whites as the southern states do.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:53 PM
Comment #386261
This means you cannot conclude that the greater crime in a southern urban area compared to a southern rural one is a result of gun control laws.

Yes I can; statistics conclude that areas with more gun control laws have more crime than areas without gun control laws.

In 2000, George Soros’ Open Society Institute released a report it dubbed “the first comprehensive state-by-state look at gun laws in the United States.” The institute compared every state’s gun laws systematically and gave states negative scores to indicate limited gun control laws or what the institute considered to be “undermining” federal law minimum standards. This report claimed that Massachusetts had the best gun control laws in the nation, while Maine had the absolute worst.

Unless something has changed substantially in the last decade, the FBI’s latest crime statistics show that Maine actually had the fewest violent crimes and aggravated assaults of any state in the nation last year, while Massachusetts was 12th highest for aggravated assaults and 15th highest for violent crimes.

http://www.infowars.com/gun-control-laws-will-not-prevent-crime/

Or the Chicago University finding that allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime.

It is quite possible that a little bit of gun control lowers the crime rate, but too much will cause it to increase again.

Warren, this comment only proves that Democrats have not been able to find that balance. Because all Democrat controlled cites have high crime rates.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:54 PM
Comment #386263
This means you cannot conclude that the greater crime in a southern urban area compared to a southern rural one is a result of gun control laws.

Yes I can; statistics conclude that areas with more gun control laws have more crime than areas without gun control laws.

In 2000, George Soros’ Open Society Institute released a report it dubbed “the first comprehensive state-by-state look at gun laws in the United States.” The institute compared every state’s gun laws systematically and gave states negative scores to indicate limited gun control laws or what the institute considered to be “undermining” federal law minimum standards. This report claimed that Massachusetts had the best gun control laws in the nation, while Maine had the absolute worst.

Unless something has changed substantially in the last decade, the FBI’s latest crime statistics show that Maine actually had the fewest violent crimes and aggravated assaults of any state in the nation last year, while Massachusetts was 12th highest for aggravated assaults and 15th highest for violent crimes.

http://www.infowars.com/gun-control-laws-will-not-prevent-crime/

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:56 PM
Comment #386264

Or the Chicago University finding that allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime.

It is quite possible that a little bit of gun control lowers the crime rate, but too much will cause it to increase again.

Warren, this comment only proves that Democrats have not been able to find that balance. Because all Democrat controlled cites have high crime rates.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:56 PM
Comment #386265

Sorry, I had to send in 3 posts, WB would not allow to send one post.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 1:57 PM
Comment #386266
Lastly, I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that most gun control legislation is enacted at the state level. Municipalities such as New Orleans or Birmingham may have Democratic local governments, but they still have liberal regulations regarding firearms due to the laws passed by their respective state governments.

So I guess it’s just my imagination that the SCOTUS had to take up cases against NYC, Chicago, DC, and others.

Oh right, I forgot, only you are allowed to cherry pick cities to prove a point. Never mind about Boston. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 1:50 PM

I already stated this whole conversation was based upon phx8’s comments about southern slave states.

Regarding Boston,

Unless something has changed substantially in the last decade, the FBI’s latest crime statistics show that Maine actually had the fewest violent crimes and aggravated assaults of any state in the nation last year, while Massachusetts was 12th highest for aggravated assaults and 15th highest for violent crimes.

This is from a previous link; if the Mass state is 12th highest, according to the FBI, and according to you the rural crime is low, then Boston must be where most of the crime occurs.

But at any rate, this conversation is exhausted. I continue to present facts and you continue to defend Democrat policy. Thanks for trying.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 29, 2014 2:17 PM
Comment #386268
This still won’t work, because rural areas in Mass do not contain the same ratio of blacks to whites as the southern states do.

You assume that the ratio of blacks to whites is important here, but you do not justify this presupposition. If higher crime rates in cities are a result of urbanization, not the result of the color of the skin of the people living there then the ratio of Blacks and Whites is not important.

Yes I can; statistics conclude that areas with more gun control laws have more crime than areas without gun control laws.

It will be hard to argue that correlation implies causation when there are contradictory studies as well. My personal opinion is that the current impact of gun laws is too small to be teased out in isolation.

Because all Democrat controlled cites have high crime rates.
No, there are plenty of cities with low crime rates. From the links shared by Rich it is apparent the cities located in states controlled by Republicans have the highest crime rates.
So I guess it’s just my imagination that the SCOTUS had to take up cases against NYC, Chicago, DC, and others.
DC is not part of any state; Chicago and New York City were following the laws of Illinois and New York State. However, this really isn’t relevant. What is relevant is what is happening in the cities with high crime rates that happen to be in states with Republican governors/legislators. Are those cities able to override their state governments and enact gun control? No, they are not.
This is from a previous link; if the Mass state is 12th highest, according to the FBI, and according to you the rural crime is low, then Boston must be where most of the crime occurs.
Duh! Urban areas have more crime. And it’s not just Boston, but Worcester, Springfield, Lowell, etc as well.
I continue to present facts
Presenting facts isn’t enough. You need to have a logically sound argument. I cannot say: The sky is blue, that is a fact. Therefore, blueberries are the best tasting fruit. The premise of that argument is grounded in fact, but the logic is unsound.

Your argument uses the following facts:
1) Cities have higher crime than rural areas.
2) Cities tend to have Democratic local governments.
3) Democratic governments tend to enact gun control legislation.

I am not contending those facts. You want to pretend that I am in order to force me to argue a strawman that I cannot win. However, your conclusion (gun control causes more crime) does not follow from those facts.

Your conclusion rests upon these assumptions that are unverified:
1) All cities with Democrats in control have strong gun control. Cities in states with Republicans in power have just as much gun control as cities elsewhere.
2) The presence of rural areas with liberal gun laws near the cities in states with Republicans in charge has no impact on the crime rate there.
3) All variations in crime rate can only be attributed to two factors: the ratio of Blacks to Whites and the local gun laws.

Prove these assumptions true and you’ll win the argument.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment #386271

Because you are new here, I figured you probably should know my position. I support putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. However, criminals ought not to be able to get their hands on such weapons. I oppose complete bans like the Illinois ban on handguns that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. I also recognize that urban and rural areas have different dynamics. Unlicensed concealed carry may be appropriate in Vermont, but not elsewhere.

The second amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. However, like all rights, it comes with responsibilities not to violate another’s rights. Also, increased crime due to plentiful firearms is a price that must sometimes be paid to protect this natural right.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2014 5:30 PM
Comment #386272

First, I disagree with Warren that all the people in Ferguson who were rioting were expressing the same anger as the others. Some people are criminals, and they’ll take the opportunity to try and get away with things when they think they can. There’s a certain amount of all populations, though, that’s liable to do that. You’ll see it when the situation is right.

I accept that we’re not dealing with angelic beings here. But neither are they the demons that Darren Wilson spoke of.

He is right, though, to question this notion that Democratic rule is what makes the cities more violent. Off the top of my head, I’d say the fact that around 4 out of 5 people live in the Cities or suburbs. Going further, though, I’d imagine that density, availability of drugs and alcohol, and poverty do a lot as well. We’ve seen studies of Appalachian small towns that have similar crime rates, with similar situations. The geography, the terrain, forces people to live close in with one another, substance abuse and poverty are rampant… put people in similar conditions, and you’ll see similar outcomes.

I don’t think there is anything fundamentally different between black people and white people. I think the main separating factor is that for the longest time, black people had to develop as a society segregated from other races and forced into a state of poverty where otherwise they might have been able to do just as well as white people.

Too much of Republican policy is founded on ideas that ignore historical disadvantage as a means to equalize everybody. Not much point to equalizing people in nominal terms, if in real terms, the real and lasting harm of slavery, segregation, and discrimination thereafter is still being done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2014 6:49 PM
Comment #386285

Walt Williams (an African American scholar and Op-Ed writer) wrote this article back in late August, 2014.

Some of the statistics he cites are very troubling.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 30, 2014 9:01 PM
Comment #386288

Let’s see what MLK thought about civil disobedience:

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”

Civil disobedience

Posted by: Speak4all at December 1, 2014 4:56 PM
Comment #386289

A good video of the protestors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cziOFk5n9Fs

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2014 5:31 PM
Comment #386290

We had the same thing happen in my town, protestors blocking traffic on a freeway exit causing a traffic backup during the evening rush hour, Jack. It’s lucky the police were there to calm the drivers. I can only imagine the carnage if one of the drivers decided to break the roadblock.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 1, 2014 5:49 PM
Comment #386291

While I always favor the rule of law we can hope for icy, rainy weather where a car accidentally slams into the line of protestor. I hope none are killed but a few broken bones would not be too much. Presumably, the injured would be heroes and would then understand sacrifice for the cause.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2014 5:58 PM
Comment #386292

Let’s see what MLK thought about civil disobedience:

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Did MLK break into stores to steal merchandise, or torch buildings and cars?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2014 6:24 PM
Comment #386294
Did MLK break into stores to steal merchandise, or torch buildings and cars?

No. Evidently, MLK believed the laws prohibiting thievery and arson to be just.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2014 8:57 PM
Comment #386295

There really is a lack of leadership. MLK and many around him were honest and moral men. They could lead by example. Today we have nothing, less than nothing - we have Al Sharpton.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2014 9:13 PM
Comment #386296

I believe the unjust laws that MLK considered unjust were laws such as separate drinking fountains, sitting in the back of the bus, and the white only places. That being said, we all have the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. As far as Furguson goes, I think MLK would be very unhappy with the looting and stealing going on.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 1, 2014 9:23 PM
Comment #386307

Now that the Garner decision is in the question becomes “what’s the difference between a thug and a thug with a badge”? “The thug with the badge gets to murder someone with impunity and without fear of ever being prosecuted or brought to any form of justice”.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 3, 2014 4:04 PM
Post a comment