I suppose we have grown accustomed to the murders, and so we hardly notice anymore. Murder on the streets is just a routine part of day to day life now. Progress, I guess. I call it that cause it sometimes seems the “progressives” like it this way.
Anyway, this guy was wanted by the police in the murder of a gang member. The cops had been looking for him for a while, like several months, and they went about this by watching for him in the places he hung out and by talking with people who knew him, like his friends. Antioch was a small town then, so that's what the police did, cause everybody knew everybody back then. Turns out this guy's friends knew where he was most of the time, because he was hanging with them, living with them, partying with them, and that sort of thing. They forgot to mention that to the cops
After about 6 months of looking for him, the cops gathered around the house where this guy was hiding, and they invited him to come out. As I recall, it was night, and there was some considerable discussion between the cops outside and the guy inside before much happened, and then the guy came out and pointed his gun (he had this gun cause even though all his friends thought he was a cool guy, he also happened to be a criminal and so he had this gun that he pointed at folks he didn't like, like the dude he allegedly murdered) at the cops. And they shot him! Right there on the front lawn, next to the pink flamingos.
No, you're right....I don't know if they had pink flamingos on the lawn. Who remembers these things? I do remember that the cops killed this guy cause he pointed a gun at them, and I remember the outrage over this. The paper didn't think the cops handled that very well. And I specially remember the girl the paper interviewed, one of the criminal's friends, (one of those friends who could have helped the cops arrest the guy peacefully, but of course did not) because she didn't think they needed to shoot this guy just because he pointed his gun at them, cause they coulda just shot the gun out of his hand, like they do on TV, and then everything would have been OK, ya know?
Those of you who followed my column for a while have heard this story before. I keep bringing it up cause it is such a perfect illustration of how, uh, mistaken some people can be. I'm one of those weirdos who shoots guns for fun. I used to spend hours on the range with my target pistol, which was far more accurate than the service pistols the cops carried, and as good as I got at that sport, I could not have shot the gun out of the hand of a criminal, in the dark, thirty yards away. That's movie cowboy nonsense, and it doesn't happen in real time.
But the cops suffered for that one, so when the next time rolled around, which it always seems to do, the cops surrounded the house in Antioch where the next murder suspect was holed up, with his baby daughter held hostage, and this time the cops didn't shoot him. Instead, they waited, and waited, and waited, and then finally the criminal killed the baby girl. Not surprisingly, the cops caught all the criticism that time, too. And each year after, as the paper showed the baby's mother, the misguided child who chose to reproduce with this murderer, placing flowers on the baby's grave, the cops caught it anew. Progress, again.
I wrote for that paper, and we all know how that worked out. Now, I have no evidence that anyone from that paper was down there in Oakland rioting and breaking windows, and assaulting police officers the other night after the judge handed out the sentence in the BART station shooting case. Or as some of the locals, collectively named the “community” in the paper, call it: the “execution” of a pure innocent “father and peacemaker” by a police officer. So don't jump to the conclusion that the paper actively supported those riots. And I don't know what the paper wrote about those riots, cause I don't read that paper. I only know how I feel about the people that did that rioting, and those who support them.
Subtle hint: If I'm paying attention to the rules of proper writin' of the language, when I want to say that a person, WHO did something, I won't say that a person, THAT did something, cause that would be incorrect. THAT did something, should be reserved for animals and things and such, and it's only humans, ah, WHO do something. So if I write about the people, THAT did that rioting, well you figure it out.
I don't much like the folks that riot about situations like this. Rioting does not help their argument, whatever that argument might be. I don't think the cops are perfect. I do think I like what they do more than what the murdering gang members do. I like what cops do more than the anarchists that fed that riot, and that use any excuse to burn down our civilization. I trust cops more than I trust the average criminal.
I cannot escape the fact that most of the yelling over the BART shooting is about race. The criminal killed was Black and the cop was White, and apparently that is all that counts with the anarchists, the progressives, and the “community” that supports the rioters.
And I'm completely hung up on the words of a flawed man who once said some really fine words. Perhaps the most important thing Martin Luther King ever said was that someday we would have a world where people would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. I cannot argue with this wish.
By any definition, Oscar Grant was a criminal. Twelve times he was charged with crimes, and he was only 22 years old. He did prison time for drug dealing. He once tossed a gun out of his car when he was being chased for a traffic violation. He was high on prescription drugs, illegally obtained and consumed, when he found himself drunk and rowdy and fighting and terrorizing the innocent riders on a BART train at two in the morning. He resisted arrest. And he got shot and killed in the total chaos that followed. Should he have been surprised by this? Was he killed because of the color of his skin? Or was he there, misbehaving, because of the content of his character?
Johannes Mehserle was an unprepared, under trained man thrust into a situation he was completely unable to handle simply because the officers with seniority got the holiday off. He tried to arrest a criminal that was acting like a criminal, resisting arrest, struggling and behaving badly, and a threatening crowd surrounded him. Perhaps he had memories of four police officers murdered only months earlier by a misanthrope not much different from Oscar Grant rattling around in his young head. He panicked. He lost all control of this thinking and actions, and he killed that man. Because he was White? Or just because he was woefully unable to do what he was supposed to do?
In an environment where the “community” hardly raises any comment over a hundred gang related murders each and every year, suddenly the “community” is outraged over the killing of one man by one man. I wonder how this becomes only about race, when it really is about content of character?
And for the progressives who state that we should simply accept a few riots, because in this country's history the police sometimes did discriminate against minorities, I suggest we stop living in the past and instead consider what we can do to survive today. That is how we progress.
And those despicable mobs that use this tragedy as an excuse to riot, loot, burn, and assault...if that is not indicative of a corruption of content of character, we are losing any semblance of our civilization, and if the “progressives”, and the media don't get that, they are as much to blame as those cretins in the streets.
Meanwhile, the anarchists are already planning the next riot, and while smiling, they announced this to a panting media that cannot get enough. The following item in the news program I was watching this morning was about two more gang members murdered by gang members. I must have missed the part where the “community” was organizing to put a halt to this ongoing tragedy. Because that item just seemed to fade into the routine of day to day.