Trump Calls On Police To Be Rougher In Handling Suspects In Speech Denounced By Police Organizations

Controversial statements by President Donald Trump in the past have often been treated by his supporters as hyperbole or not to be taken strictly or even seriously.  However, a speech last Friday had some particularly chilling elements for anyone who believes in the rule of the law.  Trump was speaking to law enforcement officers and urged them not to be “too nice” to suspected criminals and gang members.  He further seemed to encourage intentional acts of harm and abuse in the handling of prisoners. The comments were irresponsible and should be be corrected by the White House.  We recently discussed Trump’s praise for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has bragged about extrajudicial killings and encouraged police abuse.  This is obviously not that extreme but it is still highly disturbing in a speech where the President has pledged that “We have your backs 100 percent” while encouraging them to be rough in handling of suspects. His comments have led to police organizations publicly rejecting the comments and assuring the public that they will not engage in such conduct.

In his speech in Brentwood, New York, Trump departed from his prepared comments to encourage police to be tougher in handling suspects:

“When you see these towns, and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough,” he said, referring to the arrest of alleged gang members. “I said, please don’t be too nice.”

“When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over,” [mimicking an officer protecting the head of a suspect] Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody? Don’t hit their head?”

“I said, you can take the hand away, OK?”

He went on to praise his  acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan  as “a tough guy”  and his agents as “Rough guys. They’re rough.”

The President’s comments about letting suspects hit their heads on police cars was met by laughter from the officers in the audience.

Police experts have denounced the Presidents’ comments as “irresponsible.”

The President’s comments could also, again, be introduced in court as evidence of a policy of more physical or abusive tactics. The White House has said that the President’s tweets and comments are official policy statements. In cases alleging harm to suspects, these words could be introduced to show an encouragement for tactics to rough up or harm suspects.  Police are constitutionally and civilly required to protect suspects from harm in these circumstances.  The suspect is under the control of the officer and not able to freely move.  That is why officers protect their heads in putting them into cruisers.  Otherwise, officers could regularly slam the heads of suspects into cars and claim that the suspects were careless.

 

169 thoughts on “Trump Calls On Police To Be Rougher In Handling Suspects In Speech Denounced By Police Organizations

  1. Courtesy Advisory:
    I’ll be out of town for several days with no computer access, so I won’t be able to answer any questions anyone may pose to me until I return.
    KR

  2. @ allan
    “Roy Rogers, ‘Of course you find torture perfectly acceptable, Allan,’

    “I don’t find torture acceptable. I find protecting America and its people acceptable.”

    @allan
    “The number of waterboardings we perform are few. I find that perfectly acceptable if it is done with careful thought and the intention of saving American troops or innocent civilians. [Emphasis added]

    @ allan

    “As far as I am concerned any terrorist can pull the Trigger on you whenever he wants.”

    Do you feel that way about the countless US troops and civilians who also oppose torturing terrorism suspects, allan?

    I don’t know if it will help you to be less fearful (and consequently less hateful), but your chances of being harmed by a terrorist are extremely slim, to say the least.

    There are a myriad of sources of statistics on terrorist-generated morbidity and mortality, but here’s one that should get you started and help remind you that Fox’s “24” is a work of fiction, not a documentary:

    “You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Texting While Driving, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Food, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or ‘Autoerotic Asphyxiation’ than by Terrorists.

    “Daniel Benjamin – the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the United States Department of State from 2009 to 2012 – noted last month (at 10:22):

    ” ‘The total number of deaths from terrorism in recent years has been extremely small in the West. And the threat itself has been considerably reduced. Given all the headlines people don’t have that perception; but if you look at the statistics that is the case.

    Time Magazine noted in 2013 that the chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States from 2007 to 2011, according to Richard Barrett – coordinator of the United Nations al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team – was 1 in 20 million.

    “Let’s look at specific numbers …

    “The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011.* That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.”
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/youre-55-times-likely-killed-police-officer-terrorist.html

    Disclaimer: Notwithstanding your being an aficionado of waterboarding, allan, I urge you to not construe these and other available statistics in such a way as to become complacent regarding the dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation. 🙂

    • Ken R., you have your opinion and I accept what you believe. Torture is not something any of us accept lightly. I just so happen to value the life of an American citizen a lot more than I value the life of a terrorist and waterboarding doesn’t even take that life. We have enough knowledgeable people telling us it is useful and I presented just one. You can hold your opinion and vote for an official that promises not to waterboard. Whether that promise is kept or not we may never know.

      As far as the dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation, you know about that subject better than I.

  3. “Neither or both, or possibly just one. ”

    Enigma, when you took a multiple choice test in school did you mark all the choices or just the right one?

    Perhaps your most recent comment makes the most sense even though it is unlikely for you to recognize the meaning behind Shoo Fly. It was written during the Civil war (that is after Mexico obtained independence from Spain in 1821 and before our next war that I will let you figure out the name of and why those later troops may have been singing the song.) The song may have been inspired by a soldier in a black company that I believe was “Company G”. If you recall the song contains the “n” word that no one is permitted to speak unless of course he is permitted.

    (hint: yellow)

  4. For anyone still wondering about what Trump has done, here is something that hasn’t been mentioned.

    In a major shift from lax Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration is finally allowing customs officers to screen all cargo trucks entering the U.S. from Mexico and sources on both sides of the border tell Judicial Watch Mexican drug cartels are fuming. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is using X-ray technology and other non-intrusive tools to screen 100% of cargo trucks crossing the southern border after eight years of sporadic or random screening permitted under the Obama administration.

    “We felt like we were the welcoming committee and not like we were guarding our borders,” said veteran U.S. Customs agent Patricia Cramer, who also serves as president of the Arizona chapter of the agency’s employee union. “The order was to facilitate traffic, not to stop any illegal drugs from entering the country,” Cramer added. “We want to enforce the law. That’s what we signed up for.” Cramer, a canine handler stationed at the Nogales port of entry in Arizona, said illicit drugs are pouring in through the southern border, especially massive quantities of fentanyl, an opioid painkiller that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says is more potent than morphine.

  5. The worst part of the whole fiasco, after the gross ignorance shown by Trump, was to see the police officers on stage applauding Trump’s call for police brutality. They should all be fired and Trump thrown out of office. He’s the one who needs to be roughed up.

    • You are not forced to read what I say David, so don’t complain.You are annoyed because you gave a whole bunch of stupid answers to the question and didn’t even know what city we were talking about. Brain dead..

      If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?:

  6. Where Trump is going they don’t have to worry about holding his head down, it will be in a nice padded truck with a nice white jacket that straps in the back.

  7. @The Great Zambini, July 31, 2017 at 10:25 AM

    “You don’t know Jack S*^* about working the streets, but you’ll be the first to complain why don’t the police do something when one of the skills jumps your a*^.”

    If you’ll check out Police Commissioner O’Neill’s bio, GZ, I think you’ll find that his knowledge of effective law enforcement doesn’t suffer by comparison with your own (or Trump’s):

    “A day after President Donald Trump told America’s law enforcement officers not to be ‘too nice’ to suspected criminals, the head of the nation’s largest police force slammed the remarks as ‘irresponsible’ and ‘unprofessional.’

    James O’Neill, the police commissioner of the New York Police Department, stressed Saturday that there are policies and procedures in place that limit the use of force ‘under any circumstance.’

    ” ‘To suggest that police officers apply any standard in the use of force other than what is reasonable and necessary is irresponsible, unprofessional and sends the wrong message to law enforcement as well as the public,’ O’Neill said in a statement.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-police-don-t-be-too-nice-suspects-n787646

    Unfortunately, absent benevolent intervention on their behalf, brutalized people want to brutalize others.

    • The President made a comment that probably shouldn’t have been made in that fashion because too many people have difficulty understanding how to interpret tongue in cheek comments and meant to be interpreted by those that have been beleaguered by the prior administration.

      • His “tongue in cheek comments” are quite consistent with steps his Justice Department is taking which include basically relinquishing Federal oversight of local police departments and attempts to get rid of existing Consent Decrees. That they will have free reign is exactly the message he’s been sending.

        • Except in specific cases the federal government doesn’t have actual oversight of police departments. He made a tongue in cheek comment that as I said probably shouldn’t be made because some people have difficulty understanding tongue in cheek language or sarcasm. I guess you are one of them.

          While we are at it, let’s get back to you playing the race card and have you answer the question at hand that you have been avoiding.

          If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?

          • More red herring material. The matter at issue between yourself an enigma, is the fact that the DOJ is exercising oversight over many local police departments through various “consent decrees” approved by various courts. The purpose of these consent decrees is to ensure that more instances of civil rights violations are not again committed by the officers of the local police department, which is why the consent decree was needed. I understand that you were probably completely unaware of consent decree issue of which enigma was referring; however, since the exact phrase “Consent Decree” was used, Google would have been advised, rather than writing about some sort of off-point hypothetical which did nothing more than reveal that you didn’t know what enigma was talking about, and that you can’t follow the relevant issues.

            this is to lost allen

            • Red-Herring you seem to have things a bit mixed up I know what Consent Decrees are, but I am beginning to wonder if you do.

              True or false: “Except in specific cases the federal government doesn’t have actual oversight of police departments.” Exclude the oversight that is based upon law not Consent Decrees.

              The discussion was about Trumps tongue in cheek statement. Your thinking appears to be more concrete than Enigma.

              Now I will ask you the same question I asked Enigma. Make sure any response includes this answer.

              If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?:

          • First of all, any police department that violates the civil rights of its citizens are subject to Federal oversight. Secondly, how is it me “playing the race card when it’s you continually bringing it up when race was not mentioned? To answer your hypothetical question though. I’m aware of no instance where landlords are compelled to reach “proportional racial numbers” and suspect that would be illegal. I am aware that in order to get government funding that certain projects might require a certain percentage of low income residents but not forced racial targets. The answer is neither or both depending on their compliance with the 1968 Fair Housing Act and whether in the case of rental homes where an HOA is in place, if they drew up a restrictive covenant preventing the rental or ownership by blacks. Also, if they put the letter “C” for colored on applications and then refused to rent to them. That one would be the racist.

            • ” how is it me “playing the race card when it’s you continually bringing it up when race was not mentioned?”

              Because, though without proof, you accused a dead man of racism. You based it on your phony interpretation of a police report and the hit media that don’t care how much they distort things. How come you don’t answer the question which I will repeat below. Is it because you are a racist? If you are that is abhorent.

              “I’m aware of no instance where landlords are compelled to reach “proportional racial numbers” and suspect that would be illegal. ”

              That is because your head is filled with non fact and op eds that use phony data to blame their opponents of racism. These types of calculated numbers are used by the justice department in many places. Housing is just one place. I’ll give you another, Medicare, where they use these types of numbers to accuse physicians of fraud and abuse. Do you need some more? Go to the net.

              “I am aware that in order to get government funding that certain projects might require a certain percentage of low income residents but not forced racial targets.”

              You are talking about something that is way beyond your pay grade.

              “any police department that violates the civil rights of its citizens are subject to Federal oversight.”

              Yes, civil rights are guaranteed by the Federal Government and some locations are on continuous watch for years that was continued by the Obama administration even thought they had been compliant.

              I’m waiting for your answer to the question that will never go away. You probably don’t want to answer because if you are consistent with your previous answer then one could call you a racist.

              If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?:

              • I already answered your question, you don’t get to insert your own made up laws and compel me to agree with your premise. Show me the law that requires racial demographics in a housing complex? They get prosecuted for you know, discriminating.

                • You lack the requisite knowledge and want everyone else to do your work for you. I already took your article on Fred Trump read it in the Washington Post and several other places proving that what you said was bogus, but you continued non stop using a lie.

                  Algorithms are used in a lot of places. “Show me the law that requires racial demographics in a housing complex?” I didn’t say the law requires, but you don’t read too well. I said “These types of calculated numbers are used…” That can be one of the reasons an investigation is started. Then they investigate like they did to the Trump’s, but there was no prosecution because there was no crime and everything was dropped, but you claim racism where the government couldn’t and the case was closed. What does that make you. A bomb thrower. A person that acts in a disgusting fashion by calling people racists even after reasonable proof is shown to prove your contentions wrong.

                  You still haven’t answered that short question. It’s easy to answer except if one playing the race card.

                  • Regarding Fred Trump, you just acknowledged you read The Washington Post and not the original New York Times article. I also accused him of racism because of his discriminatory housing policies. The case was not “dropped” by the Justice Dept but they entered into a consent decree and paid a settlement. When they failed to live up to the terms a second Federal lawsuit was filed and again they settled, again paying a fine. My answer to your question is always going to be the same. It won’t be determined by percentages but by behavior.
                    You may continue to troll everything I say and make it about race. That will be time in your life you’ll never get back but hey, if f that’s all you have to do?

                    • I would like to propose an alternative explanation for at least some instances of police misconduct. This hypothesis by no means precludes nor condones the persistent problem of racism in America; but merely augments that explanation.

                      The U. S. Navy conducted studies of our troops serving in Afghanistan and concluded that those troops had a problem with misperceived threat–especially during the first two weeks of deployment, and then again in the final weeks before rotating out. Threat perception was found to be distorted by the high anxiety wrought by unfamiliarity with one’s surroundings in addition to the stress of combat with which our troops had been trained to cope. After a few weeks the troops settled down and the use of force against Afghan civilians declined only to spike again near the end of the deployment. The Navy recommended, and all branches of our armed forces serving in Afghanistan adopted, new training procedures to alleviate this problem of misperceived threat.

                      To the best of my knowledge, the issues of threat perception and misperceived threat have not been studied in the community of sworn law-enforcement officers in the U. S. And, while I could very well be wrong about that, I nonetheless maintain that threat perception and misperceived threat amongst police officers should be studied and training procedures modified accordingly. This would be a munificent use of our tax dollars if it led to less police misconduct and fewer awards paid in civil suits against law-enforcement agencies. It might even make ‘working the streets’ a bit safer.

                    • If I am correct Snopes included a copy of the essential part of the NYTimes article and I read Snopes as well. You can give me the citation of the exact NYTimes article for me to look at along with quotes of the sentences that prove your contention. I will then go directly to that site and deal with the problems you face in differentiating opinionated spin from reality.

                      Show me proof in quotes where Trump was convicted of discriminatory housing policies. Just for your information, discriminatory housing policies doesn’t have to do solely with race and though correllations can frequently be found the rule correllation is not causation is something you apparently know nothing about. Governmental fines are paid all the time to relieve businesses of unfounded attacks by government.

                      “You may continue to troll everything I say and make it about race. ” So far the major basis for our disagreements is your willingness to play the race card to prove your point hoping that everyone is afraid to respond directly. You continuously libel people even dead ones. You were never a slave and likely you never suffered as much as many people not of of color that live in this country. The proof is in the pudding that you can’t answer a simple question copied numerous times. As far as people go you seem intent upon dragging humanity down rather than lifting it up.

                    • Their is no such thing as a conviction for racism whether that’s good or bad. Your standard of proof is likely impossible to reach for reasons only known to you. You can and apparently do disagree with mine which despite your assertions I’ve cited sparingly. I have never claimed to be a victim, slave, or claimed to have experienced suffering comparable to slaves. I have experienced that what still exists in this country and a pain you’ll never understand of being unable to prevent my children from experiencing racist experiences I wish we were evolved beyond. This is not a topic you seem able to discuss intelligently so you revert to your constant attacks. Do you do this in the real world without the cloak of anonymity? Just curious?
                      Regarding my answers to your question. To paraphrase Samuel L Jackson from Pulp Fiction, If my answers don’t please you, stop asking dumbass questions.

                    • I should add that proof requires very little rhetoric and no spin. Therefore, instead of your spin laden argument and articles copy the proof with quotations. We can all be considered racists because humans have preferences. Listening to you and knowing of Trump including having knowledge of what occurred in the housing authority of that time I have concluded that you are a much bigger racist than Donald Trump could ever be and he isn’t. Isn’t that amazing that a person that should recognize how bad racism is should promote racism as his primary argument and defense.

                    • You Allan are the one that keeps bringing it up. I don’t begrudge people preferences nor for a moment doubt yours but I’ve never called you a racist. When someone engages in intentional racist behavior and it’s well documented I just might reach that conclusion. That there is no amount of proof to convince you doesn’t make me wrong. Unlike many of the statements you make, mine don’t simply come out of the blue.
                      Your version of discussion includes name calling, questioning the intelligence and “prerequisite knowledge” of others and name calling. While you may not agree with my opinions they do not come from having no knowledge of what I write. Continue trolling, I find you quite entertaining although not nearly as bright as you presume.

                    • Enigma writes: “Their is no such thing as a conviction for racism “

                      Of course there is. Violating someone’s civil rights is both civil and criminal.

                      “Your standard of proof is likely impossible to reach for reasons only known to you.”

                      No it isn’t. All one has to do is show proof of racism. Of course in the Trump case you won’t be able to prove it because it doesn’t exist for either of the Trumps in the data you have released. I haven’t seen anything that tells me Trump is a racist. But with your racist mind you will accuse anyone you don’t like of racism.

                      “ I have never claimed to be a victim, slave, …”

                      You haven’t, but the voice you project acts as if you experienced racism first hand.

                      Here we go again: “a pain you’ll never understand …” You are again playing victim. Your victimhood doesn’t even come close to the victimhood in my own family so your comments that I believe are racist based are demeaning, rude, self serving and ignorant.

                      “ This is not a topic you seem able to discuss intelligently so you revert to your constant attacks. “ Really? Is that why you use spin data to claim others are racists? I’ve provided you with a lot of history that you likely know little or nothing about. Your knowledge base seems to be extremely small and inaccurate at best. You tied the creation of the Constitution to 1821 linking it to Mexico and some other things when Mexico was under Spanish rule. You apparently have been poorly educated using racism as substitute for the entirety of American history.

                      “Do you do this in the real world without the cloak of anonymity? Just curious?” Absolutely, but not on blogs of this nature. I prefer to discuss based upon what is said on this blog rather than any credentials a person might have. You have created a personality with your words, a racist one at that. Who you are in real life I do not know except you likely carry your victimhood with you at all times without self-recognition.

                      “ Regarding my answers to your question. To paraphrase Samuel L Jackson from Pulp Fiction, If my answers don’t please you, stop asking dumbass questions.“ You never answered the question because dumbasses seldom do.

                    • Your failure to comprehend much of anything and then go on and on about it never fails to amaze. In no particular order I’ll repeat. Someone else said the electoral college was intended to keep large states like New York and California from controlling elections. I replied that California was part of Mexico at the time, making that argument ridiculous and yes Mexico was controlled by Spain at the time, no inconsistency there.
                      Of course I’ve experienced racism, you obviously have no concept of what it is to be anything other than white in this country. No what I’ve experiences doesn’t compare to slavery or Jim Crow. Never said it did. Also not saying that white people never experience bias against them although institutional racism is outside of their experience in my opinion. I’m open to consider exceptions.

                      I rarely bring up race except when it specifically relates to the topic, am asked to respond to a question or am trolled by someone like you.
                      Lastly, saying I didn’t answer your question doesn’t make it true. My answer didn’t happen to fit your desires which is your problem and not mine.

                    • “ Your failure to comprehend much of anything and then go on and on about it never fails to amaze.”

                      Your ignorance cannot be hidden for things are written in black and white.

                      For example, Enigma writes: “Their is no such thing as a conviction for racism “

                      To which I answered Of course there is. Violating someone’s civil rights is both civil and criminal.

                      One of us is obviously wrong and that person is clearly you. We can go on and on with your lack of knowledge and integrity. In one article your proof was not in the data of the claimants, but the number of pages in the investigation, I think 389. One has to be an idiot to make so many errors and then try to blame it on someone else. But that too is a learned phenomenon by those so entrenched in victimhood.

                      Keep trying to explain your Constitution, Mexico and 1821 date. You were called out on this by more than just me and the other provided you with a little historical instruction. I think it was DSS. You couldn’t respond at the time and now as memories fade you wish to revise history.

                      “Of course I’ve experienced racism, you obviously have no concept of what it is to be anything other than white in this country.”

                      How do you know I am white?

                      You say “you obviously have no concept of what it is to be anything other than white in this country.” I guess you have no concept of what it is to be anything other than stupid in this country.

                      “ I rarely bring up race except “ except when you want to use race as a tool to prove another individual is without merit. You frequently don’t recognize that some of your comments involve race and victimhood even when race is not the subject.

                      I am still waiting for an answer to the question. You haven’t answered it, but you will make up a lot of stories.

                    • Poor sad troll. If you ever become dissatisfied with your current occupation, there’s a place for you writing history books in Texas where truth doesn’t much matter.

                    • Enigma, let’s do a fact check. You called a dead man a racist based upon spin and a news article. The actual 1927 article was copied and demonstrates that Fred Trump unlike the other men was released which in our type of society means innocence. The others were held on bail, though we still don’t know why they were arrested. Maybe they picked a fight with the KKK because of the KKK’s racist attitudes. But based on convenience you threw mud and called Fred Trump a racist on that basis alone. Then you added other false charges against him that were adjudicated outside of court where there was no claim of racism. Despite the fact that all your information was proven to be untrue, incomplete or based upon spin for which you have yet to apologize. That is a sign of an ignoble man.

                      I have pointed out mistake after mistake that you have made quoting your own words. I find that demonstrating your racist type of prevarication is worth the time.

                    • I don’t recall once where you’ve quoted my actual words. The “fight” where Fred Trump was arrested was between the Klan and the police. All seven arrested had the same lawyers. That arrest which you at least acknowledge happened (Donald says he “wasn’t there”) is far form being the sole reason. I considered a long history of housing discrimination, backed up by sworn affidavits of his own employees. Defend him if you will, you have a huge blind spot towards racism. The ridiculous claim that there was “no charge of racism” is discounted by the witness testimony which I provided in which exactly that was claimed. If you’re saying there was no legal charge for something for which there is no specific charge for. That’s just a silly argument.
                      Should writing Texas school books prove beyond your educational background. You could always write for InfoWars or Fox News. Interesting lawsuit going on which claims Trump and Fox conspired to create a false and retracted narrative blaming the Russia scandal and the death of Seth Rich on others. While trying to remove the speck of racism you see in my eyes, watch out for that plank in yours!

                    • “I don’t recall once where you’ve quoted my actual words.”

                      You are such a liar. I am quoting your words now and I quoted them 2 posts ago, 3 posts ago and 5 posts ago. You word is worth zero.

                      “ All seven arrested had the same lawyers.” Fred Trump was released without charge. The police may have been fighting with the KKK, but I don’t recall seeing any information about who the arrested parties were fighting with or why. They were arrested, Trump wasn’t, but you accuse this dead man of racism.

                      You mount one baseless charge upon another. I will sign a sworn affidavit that you are a racist. Someone looking at your behavior might sign a sworn affidavit that you are a wife beater. You are both of those things, at least according to your standard of evidence.

                      Do you have any signed affidavits that directly implicate Trump? No. How many were there in the thousands of units. When all is said and done your claim of racism is based upon the low number of black tenants in their building which brings us to the question you don’t seem able to answer because the answer absolves both the black landlord and the white landlord.

                      If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?

                    • If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?:

                    • Neither or both, or possibly just one. The imaginary required number doesn’t make one racist. Being racist does. Marking black applications with a “C” for colored and refusing to rent to them… racist. In what world is that not answering your question?

                    • No, it doesn’t answer the question. It only responds to process.

                      If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?

                    • I can barely find the reply so I will enter my response anew. I won’t include the question, but I will explain somewhat your answer “Shoo Fly”

                    • Maybe you are finally starting to learn. The response actually was at the top of the page not down here. I wanted to give you a breath of fresh air and I included a bit of history about Shoo Fly to help you along. But, I am sure you already know that.

                      Just in case I will repeat the question and if you desire you can scroll to the top of the page for the prior response.

                      If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?

                      I’m a patient guy.

                    • Couldn’t find your reply but did see a ton of comments I hadn’t read previously. Time I’ll never get back. What you referred to as “learning” was more likely sarcasm.

                    • Enigma: “ Couldn’t find your reply “

                      In my attempt to be more PC I will assume you don’t know what the top of the page means and you don’t know how to do a word search. I will do my PC duty and post it here where the paragraphs look like strings. Since we have been posting in English I won’t bother with the PC item of posting in multiple languages. I apologize in advance for the typeset being black and background white

                      “Neither or both, or possibly just one. ”

                      Enigma, when you took a multiple choice test in school did you mark all the choices or just the right one?

                      Perhaps your most recent comment makes the most sense even though it is unlikely for you to recognize the meaning behind Shoo Fly. It was written during the Civil war (that is after Mexico obtained independence from Spain in 1821 and before our next war that I will let you figure out the name of and why those later troops may have been singing the song.) The song may have been inspired by a soldier in a black company that I believe was “Company G”. If you recall the song contains the “n” word that no one is permitted to speak unless of course he is permitted.

                      (hint: yellow) (additional hint so I am PC, Yellow Fever transmitted by the Aedes species of mosquitoe in the Spanish American war)

                    • Because you only provided two answers doesn’t mean either is necessarily correct. In your question there wasn’t and isn’t enough information to say one way or the other.

                    • Understand, I was trying to be deferential to Diane’s desire of PC Uber Alles. I was not PC in an attempt to be deferential to you though I did want to help you with your history.

                    • Enigma: “Because you only provided two answers ”

                      I provided the question. You checked all the answer boxes. I guess that is how they taught you math. Question 2+2=

                      Your answer, 1 or 2, or 3 or 4 or another number and then….. you whine about the unfairness of the question

                    • Enigma: “Is there and end game to your madness?” It is not me that is the topic of discussion, rather you and your paranoia along with the racism you promote. The end game as you call it is directed by you.

                    • You say I promote racism. On occasion I shine a light on it. You have attacked every aspect of me, my intelligence, my knowledge, my motivations. I’ve not been singled out for this, you belittle all whose views run contrary to your own. I’ve seen you expound on a variety of subjects where your basic premise is so faulty that no reasonable debate can follow. You demand others “prove” Trump is a liar when any reasonable person would acknowledge at least that. Fox News calls for him to stop lying, The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, Republican lawmakers, those who would normally strive to align themselves with the President (some still do)but his lyin is a fact that you cannot accept, the same apparently with racism. You’ve stated that certainly racism isn’t hypothetical it’s a real thing. That was a start but you went n to say it was waning before Barack Obama who somehow made racism rush rush back when it was once wiped away according to you. Barack Obama didn’t cause racism… he exposed it.
                      You’ve called me a racist on numerous occasions. You need for me to be a racist which will allow you to disabuse yourself of my silly notions. You say certain people were never convicted of racism for which there is no statute and then claim it’s defined by violating people’s civil rights which is related but not nearly the exact same thing. There is no proof, no evidence you would accept that anyone is racist, except of course for those who without institutional controls are somehow opposing you.
                      You have within you a reasonable amount of intelligence and knowledge (skewed however it may be) of history. You choose to use this to denigrate, attack and belittle. You credit yourself with great authority on the Internet with your demands that I answer your thoughtfully crafted question in the way you require. Your obsession with it reveals far more about you than I.
                      My “paranoia” is but observation of a world where the Alt-Right, Alt-light, Nationalist powers are in control of the White House. You of course have nothing to be concerned about. Forgive me if I do. You lack the credibility to have an open discussion on race because you’re unable to carry yourself as an honest broker but insist on winning in your own mind some fight.
                      You could have learned a lot from me about why I feel the way I do about a variety of subjects. Instead your need for me to be wrong informs your behavior. In your inability to recognize racism, you help prop it up and give it room to breathe. Your offense taken at the thought of poor dead Fred Trump and lis living sons (and some of his grandsons) being labeled as such reeks of insincerity. I think you secretly hope that one day I’ll turn on you and call you the R -word which will validate that I am to be discredited as seeing racists everywhere. I have no real knowledge of whether you’re a racist so won’t make that claim, I will say consciously or not you aid and abet them.
                      You troll me on every unrelated subject and make it all about racism. Which of us truly has the fixation? You may now have the last word.

                    • Enigma: “You say I promote racism.”

                      You absolutely do.

                      “ On occasion I shine a light on it.”

                      By promoting racism you shed light on it? You can liken your attempt to shed light on it to a man trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it. Your way is not a good way to promote racial harmony and it mimics some of the things Obama did wrong.

                      Knowledge: You have disclosed your own ignorance. No one else did it to you. It’s in black and white on this blog for anyone to review. You have control over you own ignorance and control over the way you promote racism. The correction of ignorance combined with the promotion of racism in your case is first to understand the difference between opinion and proof. That is an understanding you sorely lack probably in part because you don’t want to know the difference. Maybe paranoia adds to your confusion. This lenghty reply of yours, absent of significant fact and data, might appear in your eyes to be meaningful. The truth is it is just more of the same rhetoric touching on many points without any depth, adding nothing to the dialogue.

                      “You could have learned a lot from me about why I feel the way I do about a variety of subjects”

                      Could have, would have, should have. You would have been better off engaging in that type of discussion instead of using partisan opinion as proof of racism. Using that type of dialogue you might have been more at home and been able to make more sense. Perhaps it would have led to a more productive dialogue unless of course you used the same type of reasoning there as was used everywhere else.

                      Don’t just make accusations. Anytime you wish copy what I (or anyone else) say that is wrong. Do so and prove it. If you prove yourself correct I will thank you, but if you are wrong expect to be challenged. If you call someone a racist without proof or play the race card expect that challenge will never cease.

          • Forget him,

            He just another Obama Racist that sees himself as a Victim so he can blame Whitey as the reason he can never seem to succeed.

            I came to this town 40 yrs ago broke & with everything I had in the trunk of the car, worked my azz off & now I’m just fine.

            He wants to be a victim/Slave in his mind, Phk’em, he can be a Slave if he likes in his fantasy.

            • enigmainblackcom,

              My post was to allan from an above post of his about your Racism & Victory mentality attitude.

              Do yourself a favor, seek help for your problem as it’s not mine it’s yours.

            • Some people feel they look good if they wrap themselves in victimhood even if they are born into a priviledged environment and never had to suffer.

              • He looks a fool to me.

                He, you, I live better today the royals, Kings/Queens did 200 years ago if he could only think about it.

                I all have indoor toilets, internet, etc., none of which they had back then.

                He should quit whining like a racist/victim biitch & find some new sources of info I think.

                Gnite

                • Take note Oky, that Enigma continues to ask why the argument based upon race continues. He can’t even see that he has labelled a dead man as a racist based upon proof that doesn’t exist. “He looks a fool to me.” is accurate. This type of person should not be permitted to spew race hatred.

          • You’re not suggesting that racism is purely hypothetical; are you? FTR, there was for a time an African-American slumlord in Chicago by the last name of Medley but whose first name I forget along with so many other things these days. I mention that in case you’re really asking whether an African-American businessman can own dilapidated tenements rented to African-Americans without practicing racism. If so, then I presume that you would also have us let a White slumlord off the racist hook. This does seem to be your unstated reasoning. Be advised that Mr. Medley was accused of racism as well as negligence by his own African-American tenants and their White and Black lawyers alike.

            How is that possible? History! There’s always a history. The Chicago neighborhoods at issue in Medley’s case had succumbed to urban blight and decay long before Mr. Medley owned any properties there. As you might well imagine, that was the gist of Medley’s legal defense on the negligence charge. He didn’t do it. The G. I. Bill, the Interstate Highway Act, the expansion of the suburbs, the municipal budget crises wrought by dwindling tax revenue and the downgrading of municipal bonds, the deep cuts in city services including police and fire protection, the reallocation of those resources to the downtown business district to protect the tourist trade and a whole host of other “historical stuff”. . . that’s what did it.

            And so it comes to pass, Allan, that what you’re really asking is: If a Black businessman can profit from a racist history, then why can’t a White businessman do likewise without being called a racist? Because, Allan, we all did it; and we all profited from it; and I’m one too. So lay off Enigma.

            • Diane, you are conflating too many things together. Racism exists without question, but it is too easy an explanation for one’s own failures and for handouts.

              I don’t know enough about Medley to conclude what caused him to do what he did, but in most of these cases racism has little to do with the ultimate decision. The decision is based upon money and how much one perceives they can earn. At one time the big Wall Street Firms frequently excluded Jews so Jews started their own firms and and took a lot of business away from the older Wall Street Firms. Today those firms hire Jews, not necessarily because they like them, rather they increase their takehome pay.

              “This does seem to be your unstated reasoning. “

              That is your assumption. I consider racism to be an abomination, but I also believe that using racism as a tool is abomination as well for it demeans those that suffered and creates ore racism. My reasoning for my responses is in the 4 corners of the page. What Enigma writes has to meet a standard of proof something he hasn’t learned. Try not to fall into the same trap.

              “ And so it comes to pass, Allan, that what you’re really asking is: If a Black businessman can profit from a racist history, then why can’t a White businessman do likewise without being called a racist? “

              Not at all. You are falling into the same trap as Enigma. If one can apply racism as a cause do so. I wish to eliminate that mechanism of debate when it is false along with eliminating it as a mechanism to get rich (that mechanism can be used by anyone of any color). I believe in looking at all persons in the same way without pre-determining how they act simply based upon their race. Enigma revealed in the 4 corners of what he wrote who he is. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

              “So lay off Enigma.” Why? His words promote racism. When that happens one should be labeled as a racist or they should change the way they express themselves and retract unproven racist charges.

              • Allan, racism in America is literally built into the structure of our economy; and our history, itself, is the architect of that economic structure. The historical stuff that I mentioned greatly exacerbated the very phenomenon of slumlords. None of the proponents of the G. I. Bill and the Interstate Highway Act had any intention of precipitating the era of urban blight and decay that followed from the expansion of the suburbs. But it happened anyway. It is not conflation.

                I for one have no problem accepting the racist label on the grounds that I, too, am included in the beneficiary pool of American history. If that racism charge were more specific than that, then I might deny it in the excessively legalistic manner that you do. If Fred Trump is to be excluded from the beneficiary pool of racism built into America’s economic structure, then you really ought to let Enigma off the hook on the same count and for the same reason.

                • “ racism in America is literally built into the structure of our economy; “

                  Diane, racism had regressed tremendously before the Obama years and what we were looking at for the most part was a younger generation that seemed to accept people of different color with an older generation that still had remnants of racism, but they were soon to die out. There is no society where racism will be 100% abolished and no race that doesn’t practice some degree of racism. Obama demonstrated that a black man (biracial) could be President though not infrequently he made comments that stirred racist feelings.

                  You can blame all sorts of things on racism where racism had no part or just a small part, but that doesn’t solve any problems. Urban blight and decay has been created by mismanagement of the cities. Many people flocked to suburbs to have larger homes and be in a less crowded environments. People have a tendency to group together with like people and people they know. One can trace these movements.

                  You can accept the racist label if you wish, but I find that a rather foolish act (unless you are a racist) and counterproductive. Instead you should just act normal and acting normal means your actions don’t permit the rise of racism anywhere in this country, no matter the type.

                  “If Fred Trump is to be excluded from the beneficiary pool of racism” What you are saying here should be considered racist. In essence what you are saying is that because he is white he should be considered different than if he were black. I judge a man on his merits. You seem to be judging a man on his color. That promotes racism and doesn’t help those that are recipients of racism.

                  Enigma should not be let off the hook for anything. He should learn that playing the racism card isn’t tolerated, but should he be treated unfairly because of racism I for one would watch his back and support him despite the racist remarks he has made on this forum.

                  • Diane, I thought this NYTimes alert might be found interesting. I believe in helping others in need, but I don’t limit that group based upon race. I limit it based upon need or merit. That is a basic behavior of I believe the majority of Americans.

                    Here is the article and now you can imply all sorts of racial bigotry.

                    Breaking News Alert
                    August 01, 2017
                    NYTimes.com

                    The Trump administration wants to investigate colleges for discriminating against white applicants, an internal memo suggests

                    Tuesday, August 1, 2017 8:11 PM EDT
                    The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

                    The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

                    • Allan, your definition of racism is too narrow. However, I will, as I simply must, concede that the law requires precisely and exactly just such narrow definitions for well-nigh all of its enumerable terms. I must also insist that free civil discourse cannot be held in, nor bound by, the narrow confines of legal jeopardy. I doubt that any law-enforcement agency has vested Enigma with investigative nor arrest powers; nor, on the odd chance that I’m wrong about that, that Enigma was acting in an official capacity when he lit a fire under the seat of your pants by way of allegedly accusing Fred Trump of racism.

                      As for the breaking news alert you passed along, I would prefer to stick closer to the original post for this thread and leave the college admissions issue for another day on another thread.

                    • Diane, you said, “ Allan, your definition of racism is too narrow.”

                      I liken racism to discrimination not preference. That means outside in the world I treat everyone same. I don’t look at color. I consider all people to be equal and I don’t separate them out to make one more equal than another.

                      If a black boy comes from the inner city and needs help I treat him in the same fashion as one that comes from the inner city and also needs help. I don’t discriminate between the two.

                      However, some see no end to the guilt they feel towards one group or another. Sometimes they are so guilt ridden that when they see the green boy who comes from a well off family they help him, despite his lack of need, diluting the help available for the purple boy who happens to have come from the inner city. That is discrimination and racism.

                      I propose your definition of racism might be so broad that its definition becomes meaningless, counterproductive and racist.

                    • Kudos to Diane and Allan for an intelligent, civil, discussion on race. All too rare nowadays.

  8. This is fun.

    Mooch the WH communications director gets bounced. Maybe he can fill the vacated Homeland Security spot or FBI director spot. When Putin gets done retaliating by kicking out over 750 U.S. diplomats, there might be some bright talent for WH positions. But since they worked in Russia, it could be seen as some type of collusion.

    • Oly 1, this might be a sign of a White House that is maturing something that happens to all new administrations. I’ll bet General Kelly had something to do with this firing and that we are going to see more adherence to the Presidents agenda.

          • Yes, that’s it, exactly, Allan. Now: Back to the original subject.

            According to the F.B.I.’s uniform crime reports, for the ten-year period from 2004 through 2013, there were eight times as many justifiable homicides of the first type (defined as the killing of a felon by a sworn officer) as there were sworn officers killed in the line of duty. And the per-capita homicide rate for the general population was either fifteen or sixteen times the rate of sworn officers killed in the line of duty depending on which population size one uses for the law-enforcement community. IOW, the police are, perhaps unsurprisingly, safer than we. Neither of those ratios are within the range of epsilon. And there’s not much historical trending anyway in the data for sworn officers killed in the of duty nor for justifiable homicides of the first type.

            At a minimum, the law-enforcement community has a problem with misperceived threat. More likely the entire country has a problem with misperceived threat. President Trump’s remarks about not being too nice and taking the hand away are not helping to improve the threat perceptions of the American people. This will almost certainly make life on the streets harder for all concerned including our police officers.

            • Diane, voyeurism became the subject created by your comment. “Too bad there are no tapes of The General’s conversation with Scaramucci.”

              “ ten-year period from 2004 through 2013, there were eight times as many justifiable homicides of the first type (defined as the killing of a felon by a sworn officer) as there were sworn officers killed in the line of duty. “

              I should hope so for if the numbers were reversed in certain cities we would run out of police officers.

              “IOW, the police are, perhaps unsurprisingly, safer than we.”

              Blatantly untrue and a misuse of statistics.

              “At a minimum, the law-enforcement community has a problem with misperceived threat. “

              No one can argue with a statement like this because at one time or another one can misperceive a threat or anything else. It is a meaningless statement.

              “ President Trump’s remarks about not being too nice and taking the hand away are not helping to improve the threat perceptions of the American people.”

              That is your opinion. I am not saying I was entirely happy with the President’s statements because there are too many people that are just looking for anything, no matter how small, to use for an attack on the Presidency. The economy is improved, wages are up, U6 unemployment has fallen many times as fast as it did under Obama’s last year, inroads have been made in solving the VA crisis with 400-500 people being fired for poor workmanship, NATO countries are now providing more support to NATO, we are becoming a larger oil exporter and the pipelines are being constructed, billions of dollars of foreign money is being invested, law enforcement is being praised raising the spirits of our policemen on the streets, etc. But, instead of discussing what is actually happening in the nation or what needs to happen (i.e. healthcare and tax reform) we see only bogus discussions involving made up stories regarding Russia and now this one that I guess you find of such extreme importance that no credit can be given to what has been done. (Take note of all the threads on this blog)

              From my point of view having dealt with inner city kids the President’s words were macho and probably funny to many of the inner city. They probably had a more favorable than unfavorable result. You of course can believe differently.

              • Allan says that it is blatantly untrue and a misuse of statistics to point out the police are safer than the general public, because the per-capita homicide rate for the general public is substantially higher than the rate at which sworn officers are killed in the line of duty relative to the total population size of sworn officers in our country. The only way that that statistic could be misused would be to presume that sworn officers are facing either the same or a greater risk of homicide victimization than rest of us are facing. They are not. It should be pointed out, however, that sworn officers face a substantially higher risk of being struck and killed by a motor vehicle than the rest of us face.

                Surely threat perception is the critical issue with the use of force by sworn officers and by military personnel. To say that misperceived threat is somehow a meaningless problem because one cannot argue against the phenomenon of misperceived threat is . . . what’s the word . . . No. Not that one. Be nice Diane. Put your hand over Allan’s head . . . a vacuous antinomy: Because misperception unarguably exists; therefore it is meaningless to argue about threat perception in the use of force by sworn officers or military personnel.

                P.S. I feel the vigor of youth returning to my swollen knuckles. Thank you, Allan.

                • Sorry, more post-script: When sworn officers are off duty they do, in fact, face the same risk of homicide victimization as the general public. It’s only when they are on duty that their risk of homicide victimization decreases relative to ours.

                  • Diane, Your reply is very confused. Instead of paraphrasing what was said and making a mess out of it, let us just recopy those important two short sentences.

                    Diane“IOW, the police are, perhaps unsurprisingly, safer than we.”
                    Allan “Blatantly untrue and a misuse of statistics.“

                    I await for you, Diane, in your “vigor of youth” to prove your case.

                    You then add “It’s only when they are on duty that their risk [of being killed]… decreases relative to ours.”

                    I don’t know your personal definition of “homicide victimization” in the context you used it so I left that phrase out and substituted “of being killed” Being killed is the basic context of the discussion.

                    If being killed is different than what you mean you can define your terms and demonstrate your meaning is consistent with its generally acceptable definition and then if you wish you can start a new thread of police “homicide victimization”.

                    I think you started an entire new topic instead of responding directly to your claims. If you wish you can define your terms and start a new thread. I am not going to play some ridiculous word game that attempts to rewrite what has already been factually proven.

                    • Allan, I made a horrible mistake with the number I gave you. I asked my son to check my work. He caught the error and figured out how I made it. The statement ‘sworn officers are safer than we’ is, in fact, egregiously false. My son gave me the correct numbers. Here they are.

                      From 2004 to 2013 the average homicide rate was 6.4 per 100,000 population. The ten-year average rate of sworn officers feloniously killed was 6.7 per 100,000 sworn officers. The ten-year average rate of type-1 justifiable homicides was 51.2 per 100,000 sworn officers. Type-1 justifiable homicides occurred at 7.64 times the rate of sworn officers feloniously killed and 8 time the homicide rate. My son has explained to me that those last numbers cannot be added together the way I did.

                      I am terribly sorry and very embarrassed by my stupid mistake. You we’re right. I am wrong.

                    • Diane, I want you to know how much I appreciate the fact that you are willing to provide a better set of numbers.

                      The tragedy out there that I see is that you and I are safe where we live and do our things, but in certain areas there is a concentration of murders killing all so many young. In the effort to demonize the police the job of being a policeman is made much more difficut. That means the death rate remains or grows and children just like ours will die needlessly.

                    • It’s really not complicated folks. Being a cop in a large city is INCREDIBLY dangerous. Being a cop in small, rural towns is MUCH safer.

                    • I commend you for your magnanimity, Allan. I further commend Nick for cutting through my thesaurus. I’m better with the claw end of the hammer. No sore thumb. In case either of you are still interested, I should have said what my son wrote down for me: There were sixteen times as many felony homicides as type-1 justifiable homicides from 2004 to 2013.

                    • Oy geveldt. It’s still wrong. I should give up on this. But it has to be corrected first.

                      There were 40 times as many homicide offenses as type-1 justifiable homicides from 2004 to 2013.

                      There, I’m finished.. No mas.

                    • Diane, I appreciate your intellectual honesty on this subject, but I wouldn’t worry too much about trying to absolutely correct these statistics for statistics reflect the inputs. In order to really appreciate the number one has to know and understand the inputs along with those additional items not counted in the statistics, the selection issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s