Black Lives Matter. Is Racially Motivated Police Brutality a Real Problem

The Black Lives Matter movement was started after the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford FL in 2012. Mr. Martin was apparently inappropriately followed by Mr. Zimmerman who was overenthusiastic in his volunteer community watch position. However, whatever the events leading up to the fight between the two men, the immediate situation was that Zimmerman was being held down and beaten, had a concealed gun and used it.  The shooting was held to have been racially motivated, and indeed NBC broadcasted a doctored version of an earlier 911 call by Zimmerman to suggest that he was following Martin because he was black. Zimmerman was tried for 2^nd degree murder and manslaughter and was acquitted, interestingly by an all-female jury. 

 

BLM came to national prominence after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO in 2014 by police office Darren Wilson. The reported events and a later investigation by both the FBI and the Obama Dept of Justice concluded that the shooting was in self-defense and that there was no civil rights issue. A friend of Mr. Brown stated that when the shooting occurred, he was on his knees with hands up saying, "Don't shoot". This account was later proved to be false. Nevertheless "Hands up, Don't shoot" is a persistent chant at the many rallies regarding possible racially motivated police brutality.

 

The death of Eric Garner in NYC in 2014, which inflamed things further, was pretty definitely a case of unnecessary force after a minor infraction. The recent killing of George Floyd by Derik Chauvin is on video for all to see and was clearly an unjustified killing worthy of a murder charge. Were the actions of this sadistic officer influenced because of Mr. Floyd's skin color? The subsequent protests and riots assume it was.

The police killing over the weekend in Atlanta of Rayshard Brooks was recorded on police video camera and can be seen on the internet. The incident was a much more complicated affair than the brief snippet usually shown on TV. I added a link.  If you watch it, you can decide for yourself whether the officer can have avoided the shooting, but the events clearly suggest that racial animosity had nothing to do with the matter. Nevertheless, the inevitable rioting occurred afterward.

 

If you look on YouTube, you can find a whole host of recordings on police video of such incidents. Those I viewed started with the police being polite but violence ensuing after the subject resists arrest. But I'm sure it's a mixed bag, and we don't know the facts in those events which are not recorded. In fact, however a great many, maybe most, show police being murdered in such altercations.

So, is racially motivated police brutality a common fact of life? Many innocent black men have verified that they have been unnecessarily accosted. Many on the left are assuming it's the case and have turned to protesting and rioting to demand it cease. On the other hand, the cases that sparked the formation of Black Lives Matter don't come close to proving it. The involvement of police in high crime minority ghettos and the propensity of some arrested subjects to respond violently are certainly factors. Should the police be better trained to respond to such situations? Probably.

 

All the police I know are good people trying to do a job which is at times unusually demanding and at times dangerous. Is it too much to ask that we investigate each case on its individual merits instead of generalizing? And publicize them all, not just those that fit an agenda and make the racial agitation in our country worse than it is already. Maybe have a national commission to review them and give us a true picture.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-police-body-cam-footage-challenges-narrative-on-death-of-rayshard-brooks?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=89525786&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--eXJPe3v8-04ZvtSGYw9srjxwyEkom0bQLeI_4UIsj3hASlWBwdSsKfOBRasixlugaXN-eLRhx6L0QWyDl_LGUP_qiEg&utm_content=non_insiders&utm_source=housefile

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Coronavirus Restrictions In Pennsylvania

Last evening Em and I had dinner with 4 old friends on the patio at the Scranton Country Club. Governor Wolf decreed last week that he is now allowing restaurant service outdoors and everyone was pleased to have this liberty. We were required to wear the obligatory masks on entering and walking through the building but could remove them on exiting to the patio. From that point I was able to meet up and chat with a number of other old friends pretty much as in the past but of course minus handshakes or kisses for the ladies. Eating indoors anywhere is still verboten regardless of how far apart you sit.

In PA more than 2/3 of the coronavirus deaths are nursing home patients. People with significant chronic medical conditions make up most of the rest and should be cautious. The nursing homes are an obvious setup for problems. The residents are enfeebled, confined indoors and in close personal contact with nurses who move from one patient to another. For the overwhelming majority of the rest of us the disease is not life threatening and for a great number produces minimal or no illness. In particular, it is consoling that children are spared as opposed to the case of influenza which annually kills about 150 nationwide.

As a solution to the virus problem we have mandated a draconian economic shutdown with all its attendant severe economic, psychologic and health consequences. Also, there is "social distancing" probably not a bad idea for now, and mask wearing which is of unproven benefit for those who are healthy but nevertheless gives an impression of doing something. This response was to "flatten the curve" so as to avoid overwhelming of the medical facilities, particularly in the New York metro area and other less severe hotspots but is continuing long after its intended effect has been achieved. It should be pointed out that social distancing reduces the virus spread but does not eliminate it so that if we are unable to achieve the much discussed "herd immunity" it remains active in the community until we are saved by an effective treatment or vaccine.

All this considered, the process of stepwise opening up of social and economic activity limited by observations of the numbers of involved individuals makes little sense to me. Since the virus remains active, inevitably as there is increased personal contact there will be increased infectivity (unless of course the virus, like other respiratory viruses, has a seasonal incidence or weakens in intensity). So, it's likely to be a viscous cycle with the news media broadcasting alarm with any increase even though it might be expected. Of course, this would be increased infection among those who almost all recover and in fact are usually only mildly affected.

In contrast, what about those in nursing homes who are likely to be severely affected and make up the large majority of deaths? Well in mid-May President Trump and his advisors, recognizing this situation, called for testing of all nursing home patients and staff within two weeks and staff tested weekly thereafter. This action would of course be of immense help in managing infection control among the residents. In response, as reported in the newspaper 2 days ago, Governor Wolf and Dr. Levine, the pediatric psychiatrist who is in charge of the PA Health Department, have given PA nursing homes until JULY 24th to accomplish the task.

Commercial labs and hospital labs are widely available to process these tests, and Medicare pays for them. Is it too difficult to ask that this life saving preventive measure be carried out ASAP? Well the same news report mentions that one local nursing home chain has long since accomplished the task and will be testing all residents and staff routinely every 2 weeks. Most others however appear to be content to follow the Governor's advisory. Perhaps we could speed up the process by the one which is following the President's advice teaching the others how to do it.

So what things come down to is this. At the same time as we have a severe economic shutdown with an intensely regulated letup process along with strict personal behavior advisory in order to slow down, but not stop, the spread of a disease which is relatively mild for most, we have extremely lax regulations for avoiding disease in those with most of the lethality.

What's going on here? Is it me who's crazy? (That's a rhetorical question)!

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10