Do Black Lives Matter?

 

Black lives ought to matter; and, in my opinion, they once did. They once mattered a great deal. Not long after he became mayor in New York City, Rudy Giuliani introduced a new method of policing that concentrated resources where there was a plethora of crime. It resulted in a dramatic decline in the murder rate, and Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton took notice and poured federal money into similar policing reforms. African-Americans living in rough neighborhoods were the intended beneficiaries, and they benefited a great deal.

But those days are long gone, and I do not believe that black lives much matter now. They did not matter to Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the white radical who passed as black and founded Black Lives Matter, and to George Soros who funded the outfit. These folks were perfectly prepared to do a number on America’s African-American community and to put their lives at greater risk for the purpose of mobilizing them as a political force.

To grasp what is going on, one need only look at the data — which Heather Mac Donald did a week ago today in a brief squib posted on the website of City Journal. Here is what she wrote:

The FBI released its official crime tally for 2016 today, and the data flies in the face of the rhetoric that professional athletes rehearsed in revived Black Lives Matter protests over the weekend. Nearly 900 additional blacks were killed in 2016 compared with 2015, bringing the black homicide-victim total to 7,881. Those 7,881 “black bodies,” in the parlance of Ta-Nehisi Coates, are 1,305 more than the number of white victims (which in this case includes most Hispanics) for the same period, though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The increase in black homicide deaths last year comes on top of a previous 900-victim increase between 2014 and 2015.

Who is killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks. In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The Post categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer. Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers—committed vastly and disproportionately by black males. Among all homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only 243.

Violent crime has now risen by a significant amount for two consecutive years. The total number of violent crimes rose 4.1 percent in 2016, and estimated homicides rose 8.6 percent. In 2015, violent crime rose by nearly 4 percent and estimated homicides by nearly 11 percent. The last time violence rose two years in a row was 2005–06. The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

The facts are clear enough. They always were. Giuliani understood them, and so did Gingrich and Clinton. But the sort of policing initiated by Giuliani and promoted by Gingrich and Clinton did have one drawback. It meant that black neighborhoods were loaded with cops, that they were apt to stop and frisk anyone who seemed as if he might be a bad actor, and that a lot of young thugs ended up in prison. The young men in the gangs hated this. It crimped their style. And many of their elders found the intrusiveness of the police an annoyance.

Obama, Holder, the members of the Black Caucus, Soros, and their minions are not stupid. They and those in the press who promoted the meme knew that the line they were peddling concerning racist policemen murdering innocent African-Americans was a baldfaced lie. But they were also aware that the new method of policing provoked resentment, and they knew that there were many in the black community who had forgotten all the damage that the bad actors had done in the past and who were unhappy with the black incarceration rate. Cynically, they played on this resentment, knowing full well what it would cost the people they were manipulating. They thought and still think as New York Times reporter Walter Duranty did when he was confronted with criticism of Josef Stalin and remarked, “If you want to make an omelet you are going to have to break a few eggs.”

It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Colin Kaepernick and those who have in recent weeks imitated his example. But let’s face it. Professional athletes are not ordinarily the brightest bulbs, and there are a fair number of thugs playing for the National Football League who resent rigorous policing for the same reason that the gang members do.

The real scoundrels are the politicians and the left-liberal moneymen who regard this country’s African-American population as cannon fodder — women and men worth sacrificing for what the former take to be the larger cause. That the black leaders are so beholden to the Democratic Party that they are willing to go along with this ploy — that really is a scandal. To get to the bottom of it, one would have to investigate the following questions: What role do the gangs play today in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in turning out the vote for the Democratic Party? And why are the Democrats so eager in Virginia and elsewhere to enfranchise convicted felons?

There are 17 comments.

  1. Member

    If the rich pampered multi-millionaires in the NFL truly wanted to make Black Lives Matter, they would create a Foundation and fund an outreach to the Black Community by the artist Sabo, who writes …

    • #1
    • October 2, 2017 at 2:26 pm
    • 3 likes
  2. Member

    “What role do the gangs play today in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in turning out the vote for the Democratic Party? And why are the Democrats so eager in Virginia and elsewhere to enfranchise convicted felons?”

    I think those are precisely the right questions. But it’s not just turning out the vote it’s causing the vote to come out right no matter what. Nothing else explains the vote margins, the turnout, the effort to destroy black ghetto neighborhoods, and insane opposition to voter ID.

    • #2
    • October 2, 2017 at 3:01 pm
    • 2 likes
  3. Member

    Black lives, and deaths, matter to the progressive leadership only to the extent that they are useful in furthering the progressive agenda.

    • #3
    • October 2, 2017 at 4:30 pm
    • 3 likes
  4. Thatcher

    Columbo (View Comment):
    If the rich pampered multi-millionaires in the NFL truly wanted to make Black Lives Matter, they would create a Foundation and fund an outreach to the Black Community by the artist Sabo, who writes …

    Columbo,

    This is so obvious that it makes the motivations of BLM and the NFL national anthem protests obvious. What if each one of those guys down on one knee instead put up $100,000 to this charity? Then they openly requested the owners to match the donations. Now you are doing something. Why not then during NFL games have the players do TV spots explaining the plight of innercity people trapped by crime and unemployment.

    The NFL get’s a gold-plated reputation for community concern and football continues to be a welcome guest in people’s living rooms for years to come. Instead, if they keep doubling down on this ridiculous nonsense they will get a black eye that won’t go away for decades.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
    • October 2, 2017 at 6:07 pm
    • 1 like
  5. Coolidge

    Over-regulating black neighborhoods with police because statistically there will be a higher “yield” on finding individuals who should be arrested has logical face-value. The 4th amendment seems like ample reason not to subject citizens to stop-and-frisk.

    It does not stand up to conservative logic applied elsewhere in the name of individual liberty: is there a stop-and-frisk or “heavy policing” equivalent that would stop the next mass shooting that would be palatable to conservative pro-2nd amendment viewpoints? It also makes logical sense….

    I believe it is reasonable for the BLM movement to fight back against over-policing, and the resulting violence that catalyzes at police stops. It’s fair for them to highlight the issue of “Black Lives” –because the over-policing is statistically happening to them at a very high rate. It also seems reasonable for the black community to push for police reform and the whole concept of using police as a “fix” for communities that experience a lot of violence and crimes—in the long run, the heavy policing approach turns unconstitutional, and it reinforces the racial experience and the lines of “race”: person ____ gets treated in ____ way because they are ____.

    • #5
    • October 3, 2017 at 2:31 am
    • 1 like
  6. Member

    Paul A. Rahe: …the white radical who passed as black and founded Black Lives Matter…

    This sort of thing needs much more attention. White men passing for Black, instead of vice versa? How far we have come!

    • #6
    • October 3, 2017 at 4:45 am
    • 1 like
  7. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    KGWashington (View Comment):
    Over-regulating black neighborhoods with police because statistically there will be a higher “yield” on finding individuals who should be arrested has logical face-value. The 4th amendment seems like ample reason not to subject citizens to stop-and-frisk.

    It does not stand up to conservative logic applied elsewhere in the name of individual liberty: is there a stop-and-frisk or “heavy policing” equivalent that would stop the next mass shooting that would be palatable to conservative pro-2nd amendment viewpoints? It also makes logical sense….

    I believe it is reasonable for the BLM movement to fight back against over-policing, and the resulting violence that catalyzes at police stops. It’s fair for them to highlight the issue of “Black Lives” –because the over-policing is statistically happening to them at a very high rate. It also seems reasonable for the black community to push for police reform and the whole concept of using police as a “fix” for communities that experience a lot of violence and crimes—in the long run, the heavy policing approach turns unconstitutional, and it reinforces the racial experience and the lines of “race”: person ____ gets treated in ____ way because they are ____.

    So, your proposal is that we let the thugs kill one another and the innocent as well? The issue is not yield; it is the rate of theft, murder, and rape. The point of rigorous policing in high-crime areas (white or black) is to get the bad actors on minor infractions before they can indulge in major infractions, and it works wonders in reducing theft, murder, and rape. The species of policing appropriate is in proportion to the rate of theft, murder, and rape within a neighborhood. Black Lives Matter is built on a lie: the claim that the police are killing innocent young black men. In fact, they are saving the lives and property of innocents of all ages, all ethnicities, and both sexes.

    • #7
    • October 3, 2017 at 5:08 am
    • 4 likes
  8. Thatcher

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):
    The point of rigorous policing in high-crime areas (white or black) is to get the bad actors on minor infractions before they can indulge in major infractions …

    Or even afterwards — it turns out that a lot of subway turnstile jumpers had prior warrants. Go figure.

    • #8
    • October 3, 2017 at 5:16 am
    • 2 likes
  9. Contributor

    Paul A. Rahe:But the sort of policing initiated by Giuliani and promoted by Gingrich and Clinton did have one drawback. It meant that black neighborhoods were loaded with cops, that they were apt to stop and frisk anyone who seemed as if he might be a bad actor, and that a lot of young thugs ended up in prison.

    I think it bears mention that one of the laws Giuliani’s policing policies sought to enforce was, essentially, an unconstitutional abridgment of the Second Amendment rights of some very vulnerable citizens, one that continues to this day.

    I’m more than a little frustrated that Mac Donald and others seem (apparently) uninterested in restoring these rights.

    To be clear, I think Giuliani’s policing reforms were likely necessary (given what a sorry state NYC was in when he took power), but I consider them, at best, a necessary evil to get things in order, sort of like abridging freedom of association after Jim Crow.

    • #9
    • October 3, 2017 at 10:38 am
    • Like
  10. Coolidge

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):

    KGWashington (View Comment):
    Over-regulating black neighborhoods with police because statistically there will be a higher “yield” on finding individuals who should be arrested has logical face-value. The 4th amendment seems like ample reason not to subject citizens to stop-and-frisk.

    It does not stand up to conservative logic applied elsewhere in the name of individual liberty: is there a stop-and-frisk or “heavy policing” equivalent that would stop the next mass shooting that would be palatable to conservative pro-2nd amendment viewpoints? It also makes logical sense….

    I believe it is reasonable for the BLM movement to fight back against over-policing, and the resulting violence that catalyzes at police stops. It’s fair for them to highlight the issue of “Black Lives” –because the over-policing is statistically happening to them at a very high rate. It also seems reasonable for the black community to push for police reform and the whole concept of using police as a “fix” for communities that experience a lot of violence and crimes—in the long run, the heavy policing approach turns unconstitutional, and it reinforces the racial experience and the lines of “race”: person ____ gets treated in ____ way because they are ____.

    So, your proposal is that we let the thugs kill one another and the innocent as well?

    Nope, I did not embed any proposal. But as Tom Meyer says here, I think that policing people who have not done anything wrong (which is what stop and frisk etc is) is not justified despite a neighborhood or area’s crime rates.

    What I mean by “heavy policing” also encompasses the damage done by zero-tolerance laws–getting thrown in jail for a ridiculous amount of time for non-violent offenses. when the black community advocates for police reform they are also advocating for this- If a 16 year old in the hood gets caught with a bit of weed, from there it can just go on and on and on in a spiral.

    I believe the Washington Post and others did a vivid look at all the “tail-light” stops that Philando Castile faced before being shot during his last traffic stop. Other context on Mr. Castile’s shooting aside–it does seem that his experience throughout his life with police stops were that they kept him entrapped–and he appears to have had the patience throughout that time to try to answer for the infractions, up until he was killed….it just seems crazy to me….

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/end-needless-interaction-with-cops-during-traffic-stops/490412/

    • #10
    • October 3, 2017 at 11:04 am
    • 1 like
  11. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):

    Paul A. Rahe:But the sort of policing initiated by Giuliani and promoted by Gingrich and Clinton did have one drawback. It meant that black neighborhoods were loaded with cops, that they were apt to stop and frisk anyone who seemed as if he might be a bad actor, and that a lot of young thugs ended up in prison.

    I think it bears mention that one of the laws Giuliani’s policing policies sought to enforce was, essentially, an unconstitutional abridgment of the Second Amendment rights of some very vulnerable citizens, one that continues to this day.

    I’m more than a little frustrated that Mac Donald and others seem (apparently) uninterested in restoring these rights.

    To be clear, I think Giuliani’s policing reforms were likely necessary (given what a sorry state NYC was in when he took power), but I consider them, at best, a necessary evil to get things in order, sort of like abridging freedom of association after Jim Crow.

    You are pointing to something that might be done — which is organizing the law-abiding citizens of rough neighborhoods as a militia, arming them, training them, and deputizing them.

    • #11
    • October 3, 2017 at 11:04 am
    • Like
  12. Coolidge

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):

    So, your proposal is that we let the thugs kill one another and the innocent as well?

    Nope, I did not embed any proposal. But as Tom Meyer says here, I think that policing people who have not done anything wrong (which is what stop and frisk etc is) is not justified despite a neighborhood or area’s crime rates.

    What I mean by “heavy policing” also encompasses the damage done by zero-tolerance laws–getting thrown in jail for a ridiculous amount of time for non-violent offenses. when the black community advocates for police reform they are also advocating for this- If a 16 year old in the hood gets caught with a bit of weed, from there it can just go on and on and on in a spiral.

    I believe the Washington Post and others did a vivid look at all the “tail-light” stops that Philando Castile faced before being shot during his last traffic stop. Other context on Mr. Castile’s shooting aside–it does seem that his experience throughout his life with police stops were that they kept him entrapped–and he appears to have had the patience throughout that time to try to answer for the infractions, up until he was killed….it just seems crazy to me….

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/end-needless-interaction-with-cops-during-traffic-stops/490412/

    • #12
    • October 3, 2017 at 11:05 am
    • 1 like
  13. Contributor

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):

    You are pointing to something that might be done — which is organizing the law-abiding citizens of rough neighborhoods as a militia, arming them, training them, and deputizing them.

    Possibly, but what I specifically had in mind was restoring the 2nd Amendment rights of New Yorkers such that they — like most Americans — can exercise their right to armed self defense legally and individually.

    • #13
    • October 3, 2017 at 11:07 am
    • 1 like
  14. Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe Post author

    KGWashington (View Comment):

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):

    KGWashington (View Comment):
    Over-regulating black neighborhoods with police because statistically there will be a higher “yield” on finding individuals who should be arrested has logical face-value. The 4th amendment seems like ample reason not to subject citizens to stop-and-frisk.

    It does not stand up to conservative logic applied elsewhere in the name of individual liberty: is there a stop-and-frisk or “heavy policing” equivalent that would stop the next mass shooting that would be palatable to conservative pro-2nd amendment viewpoints? It also makes logical sense….

    I believe it is reasonable for the BLM movement to fight back against over-policing, and the resulting violence that catalyzes at police stops. It’s fair for them to highlight the issue of “Black Lives” –because the over-policing is statistically happening to them at a very high rate. It also seems reasonable for the black community to push for police reform and the whole concept of using police as a “fix” for communities that experience a lot of violence and crimes—in the long run, the heavy policing approach turns unconstitutional, and it reinforces the racial experience and the lines of “race”: person ____ gets treated in ____ way because they are ____.

    So, your proposal is that we let the thugs kill one another and the innocent as well?

    Nope, I did not embed any proposal. But as Tom Meyer says here, I think that policing people who have not done anything wrong (which is what stop and frisk etc is) is not justified despite a neighborhood or area’s crime rates.

    What I mean by “heavy policing” also encompasses the damage done by zero-tolerance laws–getting thrown in jail for a ridiculous amount of time for non-violent offenses. when the black community advocates for police reform they are also advocating for this- If a 16 year old in the hood gets caught with a bit of weed, from there it can just go on and on and on in a spiral.

    I believe the Washington Post and others did a vivid look at all the “tail-light” stops that Philando Castile faced before being shot during his last traffic stop. Other context on Mr. Castile’s shooting aside–it does seem that his experience throughout his life with police stops were that they kept him entrapped–and he appears to have had the patience throughout that time to try to answer for the infractions, up until he was killed….it just seems crazy to me….

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/end-needless-interaction-with-cops-during-traffic-stops/490412/

    I guess you have never lived in a neighborhood where murder and theft were commonplace. I once did — at 101st and Amsterdam in New York — and I would have preferred “stop and frisk” to the constant fear I faced. I do not think smoking a little weed as innocent as you do.

    • #14
    • October 3, 2017 at 11:10 am
    • Like
  15. Contributor

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):

    I guess you have never lived in a neighborhood where murder and theft were commonplace. I once did — at 101st and Amsterdam in New York — and I would have preferred “stop and frisk” to the constant fear I faced.

    As would I have. As I said earlier in this thread, NYC’s policies were likely necessary to get the city back on its feet, given how awful things were there in the 1970s and 1980s.

    That said, NYC is very much back on its feet and crime there is a shadow of what it once was. Given that the situation that the situation that necessitated the extraordinary measures has now passed, should we not (incrementally, probatively) scale-back these extraordinary measures and restore some kind of constitutional normalcy in the country’s largest city? Specifically, to restore the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights of NYC residents?

    • #15
    • October 4, 2017 at 6:59 am
    • Like
  16. Contributor

    Paul A. Rahe (View Comment):
    I do not think smoking a little weed as innocent as you do.

    This probably deserves its own thread, but I am rather curious for an elaboration.

    • #16
    • October 4, 2017 at 7:06 am
    • Like
  17. Member

    Hey Paul. I sympathize with your disdain of the elites that don’t care about the poor and the vulnerable. However, I think that you are letting the common man off far too lightly. Aren’t many African-Americans from these poor communities vociferously anti-cop?

    The common everyday people can enthuisiastically embrace absolutely horrrible ideas that hurt them. Stalin is weirdly popular in Russia and Mao is weirdly popular in China because Stalin and Mao made people feel good. (The survivors anyway.) Being anti-cop makes a good many African-Americans feel good about themselves.

    I would much rather blame Mao or Stalin than the normal decent Chinese or Russian guy but the masses are often as guilty as the elites.

    • #17
    • October 4, 2017 at 10:52 pm
    • 2 likes