The feds get their hands on the Minneapolis police department and – guess what? – find it racist
Scott Johnson of Powerline relates the story:
Attorney General Merrick Garland came to town yesterday to indict the Minneapolis Police Department for racism, find it guilty, and announce the terms to which municipal authorities have agreed. The Department of Justice press release is here, Garland’s remarks at the press conference here, the DoJ’s 89-page report here, and the parties’ settlement in principle here.
The report results from a DoJ investigation launched in the wake of Derek Chauvin’s conviction of the murder of George Floyd in April 2021. According to the report, the Minneapolis Police Department uses excessive force, including unjustified deadly force, unlawfully discriminates against blacks and Native Americans, violates free speech rights, and discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to calls. “The patterns and practices of conduct the Justice Department observed during our investigation are deeply disturbing,” Garland said at the news conference in Minneapolis.
This was a foregone conclusion. One of the metrics on which such findings are based is whether black people are disproportionately stopped by the police. Johnson quotes Greg Pulles (former general counsel and secretary of TCF Financial Corporation), as writing:
The report reflects no knowledge of what cops have to go through every day, every shift, every incident — the abuse they suffer, the dangers they face in every encounter, and the depravity of many offenders.
Some of the report is comical: there were a total of 19 police shootings over the six-and-a-half years studied, with over 11,000 uses of force. Instead of giving the department an award for their remarkable restraint in using firearms — .0017 percent of the time they use force — they are accused of gross incompetence and excessive use of force.
And then there is this: “Minneapolis Police Officers shoved adults and teens.” My gosh, they actually shoved people…
The core of the charge of discrimination is based on the same old faulty failure to impose complete and proper controls on statistical analysis. The report first cites the meaningless statistic that blacks are stopped in numbers disproportionate to their share of the population. Of course they are. That is because blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Every study ever conducted (including victim surveys) has shown that blacks are arrested in the same proportion as they offend. National studies actually show that the stop-rate for blacks is lower than their violent crime rate would predict. The report is absolutely void of any analysis…
Among other things, reports such as the one for Minneapolis represent the reliance on flawed social science to gain and implement political power by the federal government, and to further the fiction that racial disparities in policing are always the result of racism in police departments rather than from more rational causes. Defining the situation in that way allows the feds to gain more and more power, naturally.
Who will suffer most from this sort of report and its consequences, particularly in cities such as Minneapolis, which also had been losing police officers even before the report was issued? Law-abiding black people in inner cities, of course, of whom there are many.
I wrote a post about the history of such federal interventions – which are called “consent decrees” – in March of 2022. I urge you to read it, because it’s highly relevant. I’ll just briefly summarize the main points here; you can find the citations in the longer article at the link.
The practice began in 1994 through a law passed in the wake of the Rodney King incident. It gave the DOJ the authority to investigate local police departments to see whether there was a “pattern or practice” of civil rights abuses. The first investigation under this new law was in Pittsburgh in 1997, and over the years there have been 70 such studies by the feds. The Obama administration alone undertook 25 studies and entered into 14 consent decrees, but the Trump administration paused the practice and initiated none, saying it was not the federal government’s role and it also hurt police morale. Biden and Garland have, of course, picked it up again.
The article on which I based my 2022 post was this. A telling quote [emphasis mine]:
There can be tension between the police departments under investigation and the federal attorneys instructing them on what amounts to a constitutional violation, said Sharon Brett, one of the lead attorneys for the Obama administration’s investigation of the Chicago Police Department. She also worked on consent decrees for Cincinnati; Seattle; Ferguson, Missouri, and other cities.
When Brett would sit down with officers during the investigation, she recalled, the first question she would get is whether she had ever been a police officer or served in the military.
“There’s a sense among the rank-and-file that, you don’t know what I’m dealing with if you’ve never been here,” said Brett, who now is the legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas. “Law enforcement does not like people coming in who have no law enforcement experience and telling them how to do their job correctly.”
I just can’t imagine why anyone would resent that. And my guess is that the “resentment” wasn’t just some infantile emotion based on being criticized, but instead a rational reaction based on the fact that someone like Brett has a high probability of not having a clue what she’s talking about except for what she read in books.
It is no doubt true that not a single one of the dangerous and delusional Neo-Bolsheviks at the Department of (In)Justice has read Murray’s Facing Reality, which contains the undeniable statistical facts of black criminality. The truly loathsome Garland merits impeachment and removal from office fully as much as Mayorkas and the senile buffoon, who now wishes to build a railroad across the Indian Ocean.
You would have to be crazy to get a job as a policeman in a Democrat run city. As crazy as I am for remaining in California. The latest here in the Frisco Bay area is that there is a drug overdose epidemic in Frisco. There were 74 deaths in May 2023. Over two per day. Their solution is to provide places where the addicts can shoot up with narcan provided.
Chicago is afflicted by an ongoing and steadily increasing — and increasingly violent — black crime wave. I believe that is an honest and accurate assertion.
Case in point: Last week the Powerline blog provided these statistics: from 2016 to the present just 4 unarmed black man were killed in encounters with the police. In the same time frame some 4,128 blacks were murdered . . . by blacks.
See: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/the-daily-chart-black-shootings.php
4,128!
Those interested in this subject area may well find useful the careful analysis in The Color of Crime from the New Century Foundation (parent of American Renaissance): https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf
je: “The truly loathsome Garland merits impeachment and removal from office …”
On the other hand, there’s Jonathan Turley’s take: “I now believe that [Garland] would have made a great justice for all the reasons he has proven to be a poor attorney general.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4054455-the-utter-failure-of-merrick-garland/
It’s quite disappointing that Turley can’t see that Garfinkel (his family’s original name, several generations earlier) is actively evil.
“someone like Brett has a high probability of not having a clue what she’s talking about except for what she read in books.”
I think she and her ilk have a clue, and an agenda that is not public safety that is consistent with liberty.
A long time ago I worked with delinquents, both Black and White. The human interaction between Black delinquents and authorities was hard for me to tolerate without becoming nasty myself, but I had to keep reminding myself that this was normal for them, even between them when there were no Whites or authority figures around. I think it was a learned culture — not something that came naturally to them, but it made me negatively reactive, whether that was the intention or not.
That realization brought to mind “the talk” that Black parents are said to have with their children, and I know there is such a thing as I have had it confirmed by Blacks I have known well. “Don’t mouth off to a policeman who pulls you over” is one of the admonitions, for example. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a similar admonition on the part of White families. Why not? Different culture. A culture, I would propose, that starts off from an adversarial point of view. I don’t recall that adversarial point of view ever being part of White culture, except perhaps in delinquent sub cultures.
My college roommate, who integrated our university, told me many stories of what he perceived as racial discrimination. The local barbershop, for example, wouldn’t cut his hair, claiming that they didn’t have the proper tools. That, to him, was discrimination. I cannot gainsay his proposition. And I know he came from a very upwardly mobile family, who had integrated Whittier, CA, and who had had crosses burned on their lawn. So how do you react to the situation? You’re always on the defensive to meet an anticipated attack, which triggers a reaction from authority figures like policemen.
I lived a long time in Africa, and friends with whom I talked while there even asked my why Black Americans had this attitude problem. And Africans tended to feel NO affinity to American Blacks. So it’s not a racial thing as much as it’s a cultural artifact, possibly of slavery. But in my recollection this resentment culture has grown in my 80 years. That implies it is not something with long historical roots as much as it is a manufactured frame of mind that is growing. That worries me.
F:
You write of “the talk”: “I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a similar admonition on the part of White families.”
It absolutely is said by many white families. Perhaps it depends where you are brought up, and whether it’s in an urban or rural environment.
Neo:
My comment was based on anecdotal evidence — I have not heard of “the talk” among my close high school friends. That is certainly not a good example, nor was my circle of friends particularly large. So you are right. I just meant to describe something from my teens and a few years after. I will not dispute the accuracy of your statement.
For what it’s worth-
when I was [17?] + going through a driver’s ed course- all of us students, regardless of whatever [races or ethnicities we belonged to], were given [an instruction] that was like “the talk”, meaning: the driver’s ed teachers taught us- what to do when pulled over by a cop(s) or meeting some cops, so they would [not] think we were dangerous or violent, such as:
always smile/be serious + be courteous, keep your hands on the wheel or in plain sight, DON’T reach into your pockets for items or for any items that are weapons…or look like weapons, don’t flail around…or look erratic…or be violent, be polite + [physically comply with the police as best as you can], + etc., [until the police are done interacting with you, and tell you that you are free to go].
We were given that speech or lesson, whatever that might mean.
*shrugs*
Neo says, “It absolutely is said by many white families. Perhaps it depends where you are brought up, and whether it’s in an urban or rural environment.”
John Derbyshire was fired from National Review for publishing an article titled “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in 2012. It can be read in full at https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-talk-nonblack-version/
“There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following . . .”
Point (10) with its subpoints runs as follows:
“(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.”
Derbyshire’s article caused a brouhaha when it was first published but continues to circulate online.
j e is 100% correct. I too have pushed “Facing Reality” here on occasion.
Our country is on the edge of going into the toilet, with people like Biden, Garland and idiot Mayorkas flushing us. Thank you, Democrats, and the ignorant, stupid people who voted Democratic, for putting an ethnic often crime-involved on a platter of superiority.
Talked recently with a relation about trash and poor black neighborhoods. Had some experience doing field projects there, seeing the ten-yard city trucks filling up and using front end loaders.
Live in a town where the “slums” are characterized by…..smaller homes. I know the area from dealing Meals on Wheels. Not at all prosperous. Not a scrap of paper floating down the street and healthy neighbors mow the lawns of the infirm.
Relation said, more or less, blacks don’t know any better. And, by inference, can’t learn by seeing alternatives. Further, by inference, if you don’t want to live around trash, don’t move near a black neighborhood. He thought he was being the compassionate good guy. Instructing me.
PA Cat:
I’m not talking about the Derbyshire talk.
I’m talking about the “don’t mouth off at or defy a cop who stops you” talk.
“The talk” is something I experienced while in flight training at Pensacola. In the 1950s Jim Crow was still strong and the southern police didn’t care for blacks or Yankees. The minute a Yankee flight student who had been stopped by a cop opened his mouth, the cop became more hostile, and things didn’t go well unless the Yankee flight student became very compliant with all directions given. Too many flight students were being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and in some cases were injured in scuffles with the police.
So, the command set up a lecture designed to tell flight students how to conduct themselves when stopped by the police.
I took it to heart and used it whenever I suffered a traffic stop. (About a half a dozen over 74 years of driving.) I gave “the talk” to my two kids when they began driving. It just seemed prudent. I never thought of it as a racial thing.
Two things to remember.
1. More policemen are injured or killed during traffic stops than any other situation they encounter.
2. When they stop you, they don’t know if you are a dangerous criminal. They will be on guard and ready for any slight indication of resistance or dangerous movements.
As a result, don’t expect them to be casual, friendly, or relaxed.
Most situations that go sideways are when a suspect resists arrest. We authorize our police to arrest suspects for probable cause. We give them the authority to use the force necessary to effect the arrest. The message is that, if you don’t want to be injured or die, don’t resist arrest.
When the force used leads to the death of the suspect, there is always an investigation. Sometimes, as in Minneapolis and the George Floyd case, the police are judged guilty of using excessive force. As Neo’s readers know this was a grave error that was fomented primarily by cries of racism. Floyd was uncooperative and was being held down for everyone’s safety until an ambulance could arrive. It was filmed, and the result was the mob of race hustlers created a storm of demands for justice. The lives of the involved policemen were ruined.
So now the police are afraid to enforce the law in most major cities. And some states, like Washington, have passed laws not allowing police to pursue traffic violators who refuse to stop. Soft on crime DAs are letting perps go without prosecution. The criminals are becoming more bold and out of control.
The Dems answer to rising crime is more restrictive gun laws, more money for safe drug sites, and low-cost housing. Locking people up? Too harsh.
The small city where Ilive has a police force that shot and killed a car jacker about four months ago. An investigation was run, and the cops were cleared. We don’t have much of a crime problem………yet.
JJ wrote: “The Dems answer to rising crime is more restrictive gun laws, more money for safe drug sites, and low-cost housing. Locking people up? Too harsh.”
The Dems’ answer to almost EVERY problem is more money. Not because it has been shown to work, but (to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds) because it comes with increased opportunity for graft.
Biden responded to COVID with massive amounts of money. A large portion was spent on non-covid projects, and a fair amount was recaptured recently in the Republican debt ceiling bill because it had not been spent to date. I wish I could say that Trump did not give in to the same temptation: alas, he also threw a lot of money at COVID.
The version of “The Talk” I got was, more or less: “If you get mouthy with a cop and he tunes you up, you deserve it. So, don’t get mouthy with cops.”
There were variations. But, yes, most definitely, we did get “The Talk.”
Virtually all of the dads in my circle felt this way.
Over the years, I have put a non-trivial amount of thought into this notion of ‘consent decrees’.
I am not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that the way that local jurisdictions should handle this is as follows.
Most of these ‘consent decree’ cases are brought against municipal police departments. The Police Chief is not autonomous, he reports to the Mayor.
When the DOJ files to force a consent decree, the local jurisdiction should resist. Do not volunteer any consent. The city lawyers should resist and defer as long as they can. Make the DOJ force their case all the way through a trial.
When the Judge finds in favor of the DOJ, the mayor should dissolve his police force entirely. This has the effect of reverting all law enforcement responsibilities to the local Sheriff. In large jurisdictions, like LA (10k police officers), a large fraction of the newly unemployed police officers can be hired as Sheriff’s Deputies. The city would of course now have to reimburse the Sheriff for law enforcement.
If the DOJ wants to then go after the local Sheriff, who is a completely autonomous elected official, the Sheriff should then tell the DOJ to pound sand. Any evidence that the DOJ has against the now-extinct police force is no longer pertinent, and the DOJ must build a whole new case, which would take many years.
Resist, resist, resist and make them force their ridiculous consent decrees.
Erronius
FWIW I never received any version of any Talk, as in nitty-gritty advice about surviving in our society.
I had to figure that stuff out for myself, with a little help from my friends. Sometimes I feel lucky to be alive.
Critical Diversity Theory (CDT) authorizes them to use inferential logic to reach conclusions based on color judgment and class-based bigotry. Sometimes a baby is a human life, while other times it’s a technical term of art.
My wife had an amusing and somewhat useful variation on “the talk.”
Over the years that I was single I had collected a number of traffic and mainly speeding tickets. There was never an instance of being stopped while speeding and not getting a ticket. Invariably, I was completely obedient, but silent unless answering. Usually, I was silently fuming. It crossed my mind that I might look guilty.
My wife had worked administratively in a police department for a number of years and had been friends with several with many chats during a work day.
So when I got pulled over for speeding, she opened up a friendly conversation with the officer, inquiring how his evening was going, and made a few semi-plausible excuses for me, and voila; no ticket.
The feds concentrate on big cities, which is where of course they find the greatest percentage of blacks.
“The report first cites the meaningless statistic that blacks are stopped in numbers disproportionate to their share of the population. Of course they are. That is because blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.”
New federal policies will of course result in greater crimes against the law-abiding with black people the most victimized.
But… big city dwellers and especially blacks heavily vote for Democrat politicians. So arguably, they’re simply getting what they voted for…
Stupid is, as stupid does and there’s no cure for stupid.
I’m continually struck by the negative, downward spiral that leftist ideology creates. Surely, at some point, the people who suffer because of this ideology will become aware of the cause for their misery.
that is the point of the exercise to destroy the country, they mean to remake it, but that’s underpants gnome territory
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/its_not_just_the_fbi_the_irs_goes_into_beast_mode.html
Here’s an interesting, and pertinent, quote I’ve never run across before.
Written by President Harry S. Truman on May 12, 1945, when WWII was only a few days from ending–
“We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F.B.I. is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex life scandles [sic] and plain blackmail when they should be catching criminals.” *
* See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/epsteins_death_wasnt_the_first_time_the_feds_told_an_unlikely_prisoner_suicide_story.html
Speaking of the Gestapo, here is a story of another “suicide” of someone in jail, who somehow managed to take three chunks out of his skull, create ligature marks around his neck, bruised his knuckles,etc., etc.whose death was ruled a “suicide,”*
This sort of like the recent “suicide” of person, in both the Clinton’s and Epstein’s orbit, who was recently found hung up in a tree with a shotgun wound to his chest, but no weapon in sight and, yet, was ruled a suicide.**
* See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/epsteins_death_wasnt_the_first_time_the_feds_told_an_unlikely_prisoner_suicide_story.html
** See https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/clinton-associate-with-epstein-ties-found-hanging-from-tree-with-shotgun-blast-in-suicide/
The “Talk” my father gave me when pulled over by a cop was something like …
“Keep your hands visible and on the steering wheel at all times. Don’t move your hands until instructed to do so by the officer. Always be polite. Always admit to the behavior for which you were pulled over.”
That last bit got me off with a “warning” on at least 2 occasions.
This sort of like the recent “suicide” of person, in both the Clinton’s and Epstein’s orbit, who was recently found hung up in a tree with a shotgun wound to his chest, but no weapon in sight and, yet, was ruled a suicide.**
==
The man in question was employed in a family business in central Arkansas. He had a 2d echelon position in the Clinton White House for a brief run of years nearly thirty years ago. Yes, there was a weapon in sight.
Liberals don’t want the police to protect you.
They don’t want you to own a firearm
They don’t want you to defend yourself with a knife
They don’t want you to defend yourself hand to hand
They want to see you murdered.