No Charges In The Keith Scott Shooting, And An Ethics Test For Black Lives Matter

stephanie-clemons-thompson-fb-post

Yesterday,  Mecklenburg, North Carolina District Attorney Andrew Murray announced that the investigation into September’s fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott had found no legal wrongdoing. This meant, in addition to the fact that officer Brently Jackson, who is black, would not face trial, that the two-days of riots inflicted on Charlotte after the Scott’s death were even more inexcusable than riots generally are. People who claimed on social media that they had seen the shooting and that Scott was unarmed admitted to investigators that they hadn’t seen what they said they saw. Evidence in the case showed that Scott stepped out of his SUV  holding a gun—his DNA was retrieved from the weapon found at the scene—and ignored at least ten commands from the five officers on the scene to drop it. Individuals who behave like that are likely to get shot, and deserve to be. No case, no outrage, no systemic racism.

Following the shooting, however, this was a Mike Brown encore, complete with angry, loud, false accounts and social media rumors focused on making Scott’s death another rallying point for race-hucksters, politicians who felt they could benefit from dividing the country by color, and irresponsible pundits.

From the Ethics Alarms post on September 21:

Following the pattern of the Ferguson and Freddie Gray incidents, unverified reports spread through social and broadcast media that the victim was a disabled man, holding only a book and no weapon. A woman claiming to be the victim’s daughter used Facebook Live to give her angry, emotional and quite possibly fanciful account of what was transpiring. About a hundred protesters arrived at the site of the shooting. #KeithLamontScott began to trend on Twitter…

and the riots and looting soon ensued. More…

a group of activist African-American religious leaders called THUG—I’m not making this up—- held a press conference contradicting police investigators, who said they found Scott’s gun, but not the book his daughter claimed he was carrying. The group has no basis to contradict the police, other than the fact that all police are racist murderers who carry out white society’s conspiracy against blacks. The group said it will take legal action against the city in the case and called on the black community to stage an economic boycott of white-run businesses in Charlotte, because when a black officer kills a black man who won’t drop his gun, it’s the fault of white businesses, or something.“Since black lives do not matter for this city, then our black dollars should not matter,” said B. J. Murphy, another Charlotte activist. “We’re watching a modern-day lynching on social media, on television and it is affecting the psyche of black people. Everybody in Charlotte should be on notice that black people, today, we’re tired of this bull. We’re tired of being killed and nobody saying nothing. We’re tired of our political leaders going along to get along; they’re so weak, they don’t have no sympathy for our grief. And we want justice.”

How responsible, fair, and healing it would be if all of those, particularly key figures in the Black Lives Matter movement, who pushed the false narrative or immediately believed it were to come forward and say, humbly and sincerely, that they were wrong, that what they has said and done was divisive, biased, and destructive, and that they accepted a portion of responsibility for the violence and property damage caused by the riots. Of course, that would require a significant shift in the rhetoric of the anti-police and law enforcement activists as well as civil rights racists, who have indicated that they expect no black individual to be shot by police, ever; that whenever one is shot, it is proof of America’s racism, and that when it comes to assessing individual episodes of police-involves shootings, Facts Don’t Matter.

Early indications are that no such shift is coming. More than a hundred protesters marched through the streets of Charlotte, North Carolina, Wednesday night chanting “No Justice, No Peace!” and “Tell the truth and stop the lies, Keith Scott didn’t have to die.”

“I’m out here today to protest the lack of indictment for the officers who murdered Keith Lamont Scott,” a local student told NBC News. “To me it reflects the ultimate continued theme of what we’ve seen throughout this nation’s history, where the state protects the states interest.”

Facts Don’t Matter. More discouraging evidence that, as should have been obvious from the first but was strangely perceivable to people like Barack Obama and members of the Democratic National Committee, this “movement” is really a platform for anti-white racism and less concerned with legitimate reform than intimidation, came from Ohio State, scene of the recent terrorist attack. In a Kaboom!-worthy Facebook post (above), the Ohio State University assistant director of residence life, Stephanie Clemons Thompson, urged her followers to have compassion for the Somali refugee killer, Abdul Razak Artan, who had expressed a desire “to kill a billion infidels” and then carried out a car and knife attack on the Ohio State Campus. She also urged people to “think of the pain he must have been in,” and used the hashtags #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHisName, which BLM uses to denote victims of police racism and brutality.

That’s right, she believes that police shooting a man who was running amuck with a knife, stabbing ten people, were exhibiting brutality and racism, because the man was black. Note that she also called upon her followers not to share her post, which means 1) she knows how outrageous it is and 2) she’s an idiot.

Let’s wait and see: maybe Thompson is not typical of the BLM movement. Maybe rational, responsible, respectable statements regarding Scott will be forthcoming. Maybe Thompson is just an isolated racist wacko, though one who will almost certainly not face any employment consequences at OSU for revealing more compassion for a terrorist than his victims.

This is an ethics test. Let’s see who passes.

 

38 Comments

Filed under Character, Education, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Facebook, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement, Race, U.S. Society

38 responses to “No Charges In The Keith Scott Shooting, And An Ethics Test For Black Lives Matter

  1. “Maybe Thompson is just an isolated racist wacko, though one who will almost certainly not face any employment consequences at OSU for revealing more compassion for a terrorist than his victims.”

    We’ll see. For a university to actually broadcast the advice “run, hide, or fight” there may be a glimmer of hope somewhere that someone rational and gutsy is at the helm… just think, given the state of academia these days, that it probably took a relative about chutzpah to actually include “fight” in their prepared response to this kind of contingency.

    Or am I wrong? Have universities historically included such advice in their preplanned emergency response announcements?

    • Tom Adams

      I just took the Air Force’s mandatory Active Shooter class at work last month, and that’s what they taught. If you cannot do the first two, do what you are able and willing to stop the shooter.
      Remember, concealed carry is still prohibited on all military installations, although there are stirrings that this is changing.

      • I would expect the military to teach “fight”…

        • THE Bill

          “I would expect the military to teach “fight”

          The Air Force, as good as they are at what they do, is run much more like a corporation then a military organization.

        • Tom Adams

          You’d think. But the class was required for all base employees, including the all-civilian shop I work at. Can’t compel them to fight, but I’m confident that several of us veterans would.

        • texagg04 said, “I would expect the military to teach “fight”…”

          Sure that’s a reasonable expectation; however, there are/were very specific courses on escape and evade techniques. I was a direct part of one of those courses many years ago.

          • No doubt as options. But I would expect the military to also include Fight.

            For what it’s worth, I think all the guys in my Airborne Battalion, to a tee, would probably laugh at instructor if he suggested “hide” as an option and probably laugh at “run” if it wasn’t immediately followed by “to a weapon and come back”…

            • Then again. We didn’t have classes about active shooter scenarios.

              • To be clear, I suppose we did, in a manner of speaking, have classes on active shooter scenarios… just typically the active shooter was a Russian or an Islamist…and the simulated location wasn’t the workplace…

                And mortars and 155 Arty were acceptable responses.

                And tanks.

                • You’re welcome!

                  Movie reference???

                  • Last Crusade

                    And I’m glad someone did that. I added it for the purpose!

                    • I thought you might have.
                      An early indication, I thought at the time, that the franchise was about to jump the shark. Shecky Greene was an uncredited script contributor, apparently…

                    • Wait, the cheesy wit was an early indication or some other aspect of Last Crusade was an early indication to you about possible shark jumping?

                      I’ve always loved the movie since childhood so I’d an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias to overcome in truly analyzing its quality as a movie.

                      Now the most recent Indiana Jones…

                      I’d equate that to bucket of horse vomit.

                    • To be completely accurate, the joke confirmed what I had almost concluded from the opening scene, with the obviously fake giraffes, fake rhino, and the ridiculous magic trunk bit. The there was the way the Joneses were tied up by the Nazis, which even by movie standards was stupid. And how Marcus turned into an idiot as soon as it was comically expedient, though nothing in the first film has suggested that. And why the hell was the Cup of Christ set up in some kind of carny exhibit? Is Indy immortal now, having taken a swig? Why, having seen the giant X, which was, you know, giant?—did Indy have to run upstairs to see it from above? How come the huge gobs of flaming stuff falling onto the oil didn’t set it off?

                      I thought the writers and Lucas weren’t even trying.

                    • Well fine then.

                      I’m taking my toys and going to play at someone else’s house. Someone who likes Last Crusade.

                      Nanner nanner nanner

                    • “Why, having seen the giant X, which was, you know, giant?—did Indy have to run upstairs to see it from above?”

                      He had to run upstairs so we could see the horribly painted on books simulating a packed bookshelf…

                      I’ve been to that church by the way, when I studied in Venice.

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ

                    The cup of Christ was set up as a final test, to presumably eliminate the arrogant and the uneducated from actually getting their hands on the greatest prize of all. It’s standard fantasy fare, though it smacks of the choice of the gold, silver, or leaden caskets in The Merchant of Venice. As for Indy being immortal, I do not believe so, since he was told the price of immortality was remaining behind the great seal which marked the entrance (I thought THAT was a particularly dumb trope). Marcus was implied in the first movie to actually have been an adventurer himself when he was younger, and there is no basis for him to suddenly become clueless – indeed he later on tells the Nazis and their servants they are meddling with powers they can’t comprehend in an intelligent and authoritative demeanor, only to then make a fool of himself riding out of the canyon on horseback. I can only guess different writers wrote those scenes.

                    • “As for Indy being immortal, I do not believe so, since he was told the price of immortality was remaining behind the great seal which marked the entrance (I thought THAT was a particularly dumb trope)”

                      To quibble on trivia…

                      wasn’t it only the CUP that had to remain on the other side of the great seal? And that in reality the cup didn’t provide eternal life from *one* sip, but rather was a sort of restorative (as in his father’s wound situation) or put a temporary pause on senescence.

                      That one merely need return to the cave and drink to replenish the anti-aging effects? That’s where I assumed the knight in question looked old, because in between the periods of cup’s effects wearing off, him realizing it, and him taking another drink, he would, by nature, age a little bit. And enough of those lulls in the cup’s effects added up over 1000 years that the knight accumulated 40-50 years of aging…?

            • texagg04 said, “For what it’s worth, I think all the guys in my Airborne Battalion, to a tee, would probably laugh at instructor if he suggested “hide” as an option and probably laugh at “run” if it wasn’t immediately followed by “to a weapon and come back”…”

              I completely agree; however, escape and evade is conditional and depends on personnel and conditions.

            • texagg04 said, “I think all the guys in my Airborne Battalion”

              I have a few close Army buddies that were in the 504th for a lot of years between 1990 and 2016. Did you chew some of the same dirt as they did?

          • joed68

            Warner Springs?

    • “For a university to actually broadcast the advice “run, hide, or fight” there may be a glimmer of hope somewhere that someone rational and gutsy is at the helm…”

      Ohio State is the school that, faced with a Black Lives Matter sit-in in April, told them that other people had a right to go to school and work in peace, so they should either go home or face consequences.

  2. I fully expect one of these things from the likes of the BLM movement; rationalizing their actions, more protests and rationalizing their actions, or silence. I think the silence choice is beyond their level of intelligence, generally speaking their too damned stupid to remain silent, they have a tendency of showing off their Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome.

  3. Other Bill

    I had assumed the authentic frontier gibberish was posted by an OSU student. She’s an adult who is employed by the school? Depressing.

  4. Wayne B

    I’m assuming that this BLM sympathizer was raised as a Christian . Doesn’t she realize that black Christians are systemically being murdered by Muslim terrorists though out Africa in places like the Sudan. When some nutcase terrorist states that he wants to see a billion infidels dead that just might include her.

  5. Perhaps all hope is not lost at Ohio State University. This, from professor emeritus William Clark, who was one of the people attacked by Artan:

    “If he could, professor emeritus William Clark would embrace Officer Alan Horujko – the man who saved him and 10 others from a student’s attack at Ohio State University on Monday.

    Because while Clark is now the victim of a violent crime, he is a father and a teacher first.

    ‘If he was here, I’d put my arm around him, and tell him he’ll have a lot to cope with in the days to come,’ said Clark, who teaches material science engineering. ‘He’s got to live with this for the rest of his life, but he did the right thing.’”

    Here is a link: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/28/what-you-need-know-osu-attack/94582596/

    That response from the professor has to drive the Left nuts.

    jvb

  6. “Abdul Razak Ali Artan was a BUCKEYE, a member of our family.”

    Ordinarily (in rational-land) one would interpret a violent assault on a large number of family members as a distinct declaration that one hates one’s family and wishes they were all dead…

    So save your tears, Stephanie, you addle-brained schmuck.

  7. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Artan was a terrorist, plain and simple. Worse than that he was an unreconstructed Muslim terrorist who hates a nation that was good to him precisely for being what it is. I will damn sure cheer on his death, the same as I cheered when bin Laden got a bullet in his brain and Zarqawi got his internal organs liquefied, the same as I applauded a whole lot of men with guns drilling the Parliament Hill shooter a new opening, and the same as I applauded the San Bernardino SWAT team making a crazed, America-hating jihadi and his equally crazed, America-hating wife incapable of holding water.

    I am ok with principled non-violent people saying that it was not all right to kill any of these folks, although I have concluded that non-violence as an ideology or a guiding set of policies is moral but not ethical. (that’s a whole other discussion) I am not ok with this kind of moral glossing where someone objects to a legitimate use of force because they are against the users, a la Lynn Stewart being ok with Castro, et al. using force to preserve the people’s revolution, but not otherwise.

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