Doubling Down

 

The Propaganda & Criminals and Andrew Knapp are doubling down on their idiocy and their attacks on law enforcement. They are not alone, as we demonstrated yesterday. Don’t you just love how the media and their masters in the NAACP decry the violent crime in the Lowcountry, demand something be done about it, then turn around and attack a fine young officer for using his training in an attempt to fulfill their demand? Factor in their pathetic attempts to turn this entire incident of the suicide of Denzell Curnell into a racial situation and you can quickly decipher their motives and agendas.

At one time we thought Andrew Knapp was a decent reporter stuck working for an employer with an extremely liberal agenda and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. His latest article, titled “Advocates: Why was black teen who committed suicide stopped by Charleston cop for wearing a hoodie” is an example of just how wrong we were about Knapp.

First of all, we would like to point out Denzell Curnell was a 19 year old adult who was well aware that he was illegally carrying a firearm he had stolen from his grandfather. As we have demonstrated in the past, the local media likes to use the word “teen” in an attempt to stir up feelings of sympathy in the reader. It is a commonly used deception they justify by pointing out the second syllable in the word “nine-TEEN”. Technically correct, but ethically suspect.

In this latest piece of slag journalism Knapp gives voice to a number of folks with a history of supporting criminals - The American Criminal Liberties Union, the National Association Advocating for Criminal People, some liberal college professors (those who can’t do, teach) who claim to be experts on police work, but have never actually engaged in any, and various and sundry other “community organizations” and activists who claim to want to “take back their community”. Unfortunately, those activists are only concerned with how much money they can take back from their community. What Knapp fails to do in this story is present the opposing view, which used to be a requirement for fair and balanced journalism. But that is what the profession of “journalism” has become over the past few decades. Nothing but a bunch of agenda driven sycophants with transcription skills and tons of obvious bias.

Dot “it’s a badge of honor to kill a nigger” Scott claims the efforts of police to stop black folks from killing one another,  particularly the efforts of the officer involved in this incident, are “a new low” and “an affront to the black community“.

No, Dot, what should be an affront to the black community is the murder of mothers, teenage girls and brides to be. You don’t see those, though. You only look for opportunities to stir up controversy and donations. You won’t even consider tackling those tougher issues. That would require a certain level of honesty from you and your organization. And that is something you folks are obviously not capable of displaying. Need proof? Just look to New Jersey where a newsman had the balls to tell the truth and your organization whined and cried about it.

Scott also made this next statement to Andrew Knapp who dutifully transcribed it without bothering to pursue the obvious issues.

“You can’t tell us that this civilian did nothing wrong to be stopped other than dressing in traditional clothing … and tell us the officer did a wonderful job in profiling someone. We just can’t swallow that.”

Read that last statement again. Let it bounce around in your brain for a minute. Dot Scott actually said something that is correct. Just like when she accidentally let her comparison of the Lowcountry to Chicago slip out.

You’re right, Dot. For a change. They cannot tell you this civilian did nothing wrong because he was, in fact, doing something wrong by violating the law as he carried around a concealed stolen handgun in violation of Section 16-23-20 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Not one official has ever denied Curnell was breaking the law. Thanks for noticing that. Of course, we know that is not what you meant to say. See how your ignorance betrays you from time to time?

Dot Scott and the NAACP had no problem swallowing the deaths of three black mothers on New Year’s Day and remaining silent. They had no problem swallowing the death of 18 year old Ariel Morgan, shot to death as she tried to celebrate graduation, and remaining silent. They had no problem swallowing the death of mother and soon to be bride Latorria Heyward in a home invasion last weekend and remaining silent. They had no problem swallowing the deaths of a multitude of other blacks at the hands of plenty of other black folks and remaining silent. They have no problem swallowing the fact that two of those cases (and quite a few others) are still unsolved because the black community doesn’t care enough to step up and make sure those responsible are brought to justice. And they have no problem swallowing the fact that black communities across the Lowcountry have been plagued by violence for years resulting in lots of their “people” shot and wounded while the NAACP remained silent.

No, Dot Scott has a problem swallowing the fact that a black criminal was approached by a (black) police officer for acting in a suspicious manner in a high crime and extremely violent area of the city and that black criminal was armed with a weapon stolen from a family member. Given the totality of the circumstances, this proves the officer’s instincts were spot on. We are just glad this armed criminal was a suicidal nut and not a homicidal one or we might have to watch another miles long line of patrol cars headed to another police funeral.

As we have repeatedly pointed out recently, that police officer is employed by the very government Dot Scott demanded do something about violence in the black community. Damned and called a racist if you do, damned and called a racist if you don’t. Makes you wonder why anyone would sign up to wear that badge. Fortunately, we have a lot of dedicated police officers who knew what they were getting into when they chose to serve their fellow citizens. Would you take the abuse they have to take from ignorant fools like Dot Scott and Andrew Knapp and remain quiet so you could keep your job?

The truth is, Dot Scott and the NAACP don’t give a damn about the fact that black thugs are spraying bullets all over black neighborhoods and killing each other and innocent folks. They tacitly condone that behavior. Why? Well, because it contributes to an increased police presence in those areas and leads to situations like this which the NAACP, James Johnson and Thomas Dixon can exploit to generate funds for their “organizations”. Strangely enough, we never see these organizations spending any of that money, or even much of their time, in these areas afflicted by all of this violence. Has the NAACP put up a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the garbage who murdered Ariel Morgan or Lattoria Heyward? Nope. So, where does all that money go? We will leave that to the reader to decipher.

“Had (the officer) not made an assumption about Denzel Curnell based on his attire, then this situation might never have happened. That makes it hard for advocates to turn around and tell people they need to trust the police department,” Thomas Dixon told Knapp. What this “activist” meant to say is, “Thank God the officer put his street experience in recognizing potential criminal activity to use and recognized this guy was up to no good and it resulted in his death so we can all go out and huff and puff and ask folks to give us money to protect them from the evil police.” Maybe the officer should have just stayed in his car.

Knapp ran to one liberal “educator” who has never been a police officer, but claims to be an expert on policing who made this brilliant statement, “A neighborhood is a place, not a behavior.” The extremely liberal Samuel Walker, a consultant for the NAACP and the DOJ on law enforcement issues (who has no actual law enforcement experience), has never spent much time in those neighborhoods or observed the behavior in those neighborhoods firsthand. You know, the very neighborhoods that have produced all of those wounded and dead people so far this year. Idiots like this guy and the NAACP seem to want police to avoid noticing suspicious behavior and not make contact with anyone, particularly black people, for any reason whatsoever. We should probably have all of our law enforcement officers retreat to their respective stations and only venture out to take police action when a call is received. Proactive policing is apparently evil, racist and completely unnecessary in black communities.

Knapp also ran to a law professor for comment. Another “expert”, an academic who has never actually worn a badge, Colin Miller of USC had this to say:

“Courts have ruled that before stopping someone, officers must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone has committed or is about to perpetrate a crime, said Colin Miller, a criminal law professor at the University of South Carolina. Running from the police in a historically violent and drug-riddled neighborhood, for example, could serve as that suspicion. But neither Curnell’s clothing nor his refusal to remove his hand from his pocket seemed to give that suspicion.”

Yeah, suspicious behavior in a historically violent and drug-riddle neighborhood is another reason a law enforcement officer might want to have a chat with you, Colin. Suspicious behavior, combined with clothing which doesn’t fit the weather, and the training and experience of the officer are all contributing factors to the reasonable suspicion Miller refers to, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Officer Medlin did a fine job of detailing all of those factors in his report. It is known as “the totality of the circumstances” and is something we would expect a law professor to know. Maybe one of our local law enforcement officers can school Colin Miller on the subject of Terry stops.

You know, we did some basic legal research and found that a police officer, just like anyone else on the planet, can walk up to someone else and say, “Hey, can I holla at you for a minute,” without actually violating any rights. You would think a law professor would know that. Throw Colin Miller into that historically violent and drug-riddled neighborhood and we’re willing to bet he would want to see everyone’s hands, too. Yet now he seems to want police officers to ignore the training they receive.

We are tired of all of these journalists, “experts” and “activists” implying this entire incident was the fault of some racist police officer, representing a racist department, and was precipitated by racial profiling. All of these folks are foaming at the mouth due to the mention of a hoodie. Any time a hoodie is mentioned they throw in the name of the dead thug from Florida and the incident has to be a racial thing because only black people wear hoodies, right? We didn’t know black criminals had a monopoly on the hoodie. Someone should tell those pasty white folks they aren’t allowed to buy or wear those things. Think we are joking? In this piece by another Propaganda & Criminals “writer”, Brian Hicks, he can’t resist getting in a similar sly dig that implies racism:

“Medlin said he thought Curnell was suspicious in part because he was wearing a hoodie and long pants, and it was hot. Gee, that sounds a little bit like profiling.”

Hicks conveniently left out the part about Curnell skulking around behind a building in a high crime area, because it didn’t exactly fit his agenda of getting that word “profiling” in there.

You see, folks, there is a little noticed distinction between “racial profiling” and “criminal profiling”. Police use a combination of facts, observations, training and experience to ferret out potential criminal activity. That is criminal profiling and is what you want your law enforcement officers to do if you believe they should be proactive when it comes to preventing crime. Racial profiling is when police do that same thing in a black neighborhood and make contact with or arrest a black person as a result. Folks like Dot Scott, James Johnson and Thomas Dixon use this argument all the time when they bitch about the police doing their job. If it was up to those three, law enforcement officers would be barred from speaking to or even looking at anyone with dark skin. Every time these race hustlers try to take advantage of a situation to increase their cash flow we hear the argument, “They had no business even talking to him. The only talked to hi because he was black.”

The most interesting thing about this case is if Denzell Curnell had not put a bullet in his own brain no one would have ever heard of him. He would have gone to jail on a charge of unlawful carrying of a firearm, just like a lot of other lawbreakers, and the 9th Circuit Solicitor would have dismissed the charge in a year or two, just like a lot of other lawbreakers.

To put it in simple terms, Curnell set the stage for how this situation would play out. Now these race-baiters and their media lapdogs are trying to turn him into a martyr. We aren’t buying it folks, and neither are a vast majority of the million or so people who read this blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samuel Walker, a Nebraska criminal justice professor who has testified about New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” policies, said such clothing “has no foundation in terms of suspected criminal activity.”

“There was no reason for the initial stop,” Walker said. “Without any clear justification, everything that happened after that should not have happened.”

 

 

Among observers, though, Curnell’s death has raised questions about a “pervasive syndrome” nationwide of profiling based on someone’s appearance, said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina.

“We can’t write this off as one isolated, tragic occurrence,” Middleton said. “To have enhanced safety, you have to have trust, and you have to find other means of community policing than what happened in this case.”

 

Courts have ruled that before stopping someone, officers must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone has committed or is about to perpetrate a crime, said Colin Miller, a criminal law professor at the University of South Carolina. Running from the police in a historically violent and drug-riddled neighborhood, for example, could serve as that suspicion.

But neither Curnell’s clothing nor his refusal to remove his hand from his pocket seemed to give that suspicion, Miller said.

“Here, it’s a high-crime area, but the only other reason was that he had a hoodie and it’s hot,” he said. “That seems pretty weak.”