Monetizing black deaths

Does it matter if Ma’Khia Bryant was the person who called 911 just before she was shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio?

I’ll say no.

She would have been shot anyway because of her behavior after the police arrived. And she still would have been shot multiple times because her extreme physical and verbal aggressiveness, and failure to stand down when ordered, could only be distinguished from a murder in progress by God.

The question of who called 911 arises only because some of those urging us to just let children fight with knives also strongly insist that Ma’Khia Bryant is that person.

Why? I suppose it’s an effort to reinforce Joy Reid’s trial balloon that “…what scared a 16-year-old girl enough that she felt that she had to grab a kitchen knife facing two adult women… No one’s asking what would’ve scared a kid who’s in a foster situation so much that she felt that she needed to defend herself or pick up a knife.” If she was scared she would have been better off staying that way.

If Ma’Khia is cast as a frightened child, defending herself from adults, and as a victim of her own good intent, it’s easier to blame the shooting on systemic racism than on her bad decisions. She had no choice, she isn’t well equipped to make choices anyway, and the system killed her even though she tried to do the right thing.

As noted yesterday, this is in line with stripping her of agency. As a black child she had little, and what little she mustered – calling 911 – resulted in her destruction. The system is murderously biased in its core.

But if Ma’Khia was afraid (indicated if she called 911) you’d expect she would be relieved to see a police officer 10 minutes later. Maybe even put him between herself and the people she feared? You might expect she’d have stood with a wall at her back saying, “Don’t come near me!,” rather than charging, knife in hand, at a smaller person shouting “I’m Going to Stab F**k Out of You, Bitch!”.

She didn’t welcome the police, and she acted the opposite of defensive. She not only wasn’t relieved to see the officer, but she practically ran him over in her urgency to attack “the girl in pink.”

There’s more that Joy Reid failed to consider. Perhaps because she felt her message was more important than mere facts.

The 911 caller says “This girl trying to stab us and our grandma.” It could be that Ma’Khia said that, but since she was a foster child her grandma likely didn’t live there. And who would “us” be?

There is a remote possibility of an “us.”

If you’ve seen the police body-cam video you know that a tall black man in a gray hoodie followed Ma’Khia down the driveway as she knocks a heavy set female in blue to the ground, swinging her right hand toward the woman. It’s not clear from the video if Ma’Khia is holding a knife at this point (though 5 seconds later it’s clearly in her hand).

The officer, who has just arrived, turns to his right – toward the ensuing melee taking place no more than 3 feet away.

The cop draws his gun, shouting “Get down! Get down!”. Because by now he’s seen the knife in Ma’Khia’s right hand? Everybody should be digging a foxhole at this point.

Ma’Khia jumps up and charges a girl in a pink tracksuit. Simultaneously, the man in the gray hoodie kicks the woman on the ground twice. He makes no attempt to deter Ma’Khia. He is Ma’Khia’s ally. He kicks women lying on the ground. In front of a cop.

The cop turns to his left to track Ma’Khia – she has the knife – and shouts again. Ma’Khia pins the girl in pink against a car while bringing her arm into a striking position. The cop fires 4 rounds, fatally wounding Ma’Khia.

The man in the grey hoodie cries, “You shot my baby!”. The man in the gray hoodie is Ma’Khia’s father.

He’s had a warrant out for his arrest since January, and has been arrested numerous times, including for non-support and domestic violence. He’s entitled to benefit of the doubt, but non-support and domestic violence are directly relevant here. His daughter is in foster care and he kicks supine women.

He also doesn’t live at that house. So, how did he come to be involved? Probably because Ma’Khia called him as reinforcement. If she knew he had an outstanding warrant, Ma’Khia might well have been hesitant to call 911. In any case, he knew, and he came to the scene prepared to commit assault – in front of a cop – anyway. I haven’t heard Joy Reid wondering if that was the first time he set such an example for his daughter.

None of this proves Ma’Khia was not the 911 caller, but that has nothing to do with why she died. The only reason it matters is to bolster BLM donations: She was a frightened child, and a victim of systemic racism. We will probably eventually find out who made the call, but the urgent need to embellish the neo-racist narrative supersedes the need for fact.

Never bring empty hands to a knife fight

Sixteen year old Ma’Khia Bryant, waving a knife and screaming, “I’m Going to Stab F**k Out of You, Bitch!”, was shot by a police officer as she charged past him and attacked another black teenager. She had previously thrust the knife at a third teen right in front of the officer, knocking the other teen to the ground. The officer was present because Bryant’s housemates had called 911, reporting they feared being stabbed.

Byrant, loudly threatening murder, in clear possession of a deadly weapon, either did not feel threatened by a white police officer pointing a gun at her while he shouted “Get down, get down!,” or she was so enraged she didn’t care.

Bryant made many dangerous decisions in 9 seconds. She survived all of them until the last: She thrust a knife at another human being half her size she had pinned against a car. Again, in front of a cop shouting, “Get down!” Whose gun she knew was drawn. In the moment, she wasn’t buying the BLM theory that white cops are just itching for an excuse to shoot black people.

In stopping Bryant, the officer had far less than 9 seconds to make his decision, and he had every reason to expect he was thwarting an attempted murder: Saving a black life. Otherwise, today’s BLM agitprop might have been, “The cop was right there, and HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING to protect that black girl!” Or, maybe not. Black on black crime isn’t so important to BLM. See: Chicago.

That does not mean Ma’Khia Bryant’s death is not tragic. It is. It does mean a reasonable person might conclude that she was murderously enraged. A condition the cop had mere seconds to evaluate.

Ma’Khia Bryant’s death is a tragedy. Proclaiming this incident evidence of systemic police violence against black people is also a tragedy; for police, for Columbus, for blacks, for our polity. The decision on that could have proceeded at a more leisurely pace, but mostly it didn’t. Because demand for ‘this sort’ of tragedy exceeds supply.

To maintain purity in the BLM narrative, sacrifices are demanded. One of those is to posthumously strip Ma’Khia Bryant of agency; because of her skin color. Which is the ultimate racist insult.

Here we need a brief diversion to define “knife fight:” Two or more people. With knives. In a fight.

This was not a knife fight. It was a knife attack. You don’t bring empty hands to a knife fight. That’s what Ma’Khia Bryant’s opponent had. And the opponent was not fighting, she was covering up. In fear.

We need this definition because people like Valerie Jarrett don’t know it:

A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice. #BlackLivesMatter.
— Valerie Jarrett (@ValerieJarrett) April 21, 2021

BTW, shooting multiple times is what you do until a deadly threat is definitively over. And when the threat is immediate, you do it immediately. And “break up a knife fight” is more plausibly rendered as “prevent a murder.” In a knife fight, there is no obvious aggressor. Here, there was.

Right, Valerie. Accountability. I demand it.

Then, we get Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther weighing in on the side of Ma’Khia’s incidentality.

“Bottom line: Did Ma’Khia Bryant need to die yesterday?” he added. “How did we get here? This is a failure on the part of our community. Some are guilty but all of us are responsible.”

Two answers and a comment:
1- No, she did not. 2- Specifically? Ma’Khia was imprudent. 3- Blaming everybody in the general vicinity rather than making a point of individual responsibility is your failure. Which is disrespectful to everyone.

I did not want to, but I watched the video. I’m pretty sure I hear Ma’Khia asking the cops trying to help her; “Why did you shoot me?” That, Mayor Githner, is a question you might have tried to answer honestly. She didn’t know? Maybe other 16 year olds of all races would have benefitted from an answer.

The ultimate lack of agency theme is infanthood, of course. So, a hands off approach to imminent homicide by knife wielding, murder threatening, 200 pound teenagers is “for the children.” Bryant was a baby.

Kiara Yakita, founder of the Black Liberation Movement Central Ohio, said she was not surprised by another police shooting. “Why did they kill this baby?”

Mayor Githner, meet Kiara Yakita. You guys should talk.

MSNBC’s resident homophobe, Joy Reid, wondered on air what could have caused Ma’Khia Bryant’s murderous rage:

‘We don’t know the details of what happened beforehand but I’m bothered that no one is asking what could’ve scared a 16-year-old girl enough that she felt that she had to grab a kitchen knife facing two adult women,’ Reid said.

‘No one’s asking what would’ve scared a kid who’s in a foster situation so much that she felt that she needed to defend herself or pick up a knife,’ she added.

Well, Joy, it wasn’t Ma’Khia who called 911. Though she likely was told it would happen. It wasn’t the two women she attacked who grabbed a knife and charged down the driveway. It was Ma’Khia who assaulted those “two adult women.” It was MaKhia who showed no fear of a cop with a drawn gun. She wasn’t cowering in fear somewhere safe. If anyone was afraid, it was the girl in pink pinned against a car by someone twice her size and trying to avoid the knife.

Maybe no one’s asking that question because it’s a stupid question. And I note, Joy, that you ignore the same question whenever it applies to guns.

There’s a lot more straight-up, attempted agency theft out there, but let’s move to a more subtle form of it: The BLM take that childhood knife fights (again, this wasn’t) are so common an occurrence that even in the instant someone is screaming, “I’m Going to Stab F**k Out of You, Bitch,” and thrusting a knife at an unarmed, cringing victim – police on the scene should stay out of it. Or maybe forward the problem to the Community Instant Mental Wellness Counseling Authority BLM wants to replace them with.

Here’s a Tweet from Black Lives Matter activist, Bree Newsome:

Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely.
— DEFUND & ABOLISH POLICE, REFUND OUR COMMUNITIES (@BreeNewsome) April 21, 2021

What could be more racist than implying blacks have poorer impulse control, are naturally more violent, too stupid to stand down in front of a peace officer, and care little for black lives?

BTW, some teenage knife fighters in those eons died. From being stabbed. Which is what the 911 call was about. By your definition of ‘knife fight,’ I’ll bet the majority of those had no knives. Oh, and you’re right, if police stop responding to 911 reports of imminent stabbing they’ll be shooting fewer homicidal knife wielding people of all skin colors.

Let us conclude with relevant comments from Clarence Thomas on how “Progressives” play the agency card:
Clarence Thomas Rips SCOTUS Double Standard On Teen Maturity: ‘Child’ For Murderer vs. ‘Young Woman’ For Abortion-Seeker

Thomas’s comments follow recent deadly acts involving teen females. Sixteen-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant was fatally shot by police this week when she lunged with a knife at another young female. In March, a 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl were arrested and charged with felony murder in the death of Pakistani immigrant Mohammad Anwar.

*Update 12:10, April 29:
Ms. Newsome has been silent about this teenage knife-‘fight’ of April 19th, the day before Ma’Khia’s death. Ohio girl, 13, stabbed to death, and another 13-year-old girl is charged with her murder I wonder if the police officer who shot Ma’Khia had heard about this murder in Cleveland.

And, while we’re at it, here are a few more teen stabbings awaiting Newsome comment. US only. Last 2 years. Not at all comprehensive (only 2 pages deep in the search results). Excludes adults stabbed by teens.

Teen stabbed to death in Stonewall
Teen mother stabbed to death by another teenage mother who will be tried as an adult, police say
Arrest made in stabbing death of Falls teen
15-year-old girl stabbed to death in grocery store during fight with 4 younger girls
A teenage killer’s eerie tweets she sent after stabbing friend to death: ‘We really did go on three’
Teen held in fatal Long Island stabbing that police say was recorded by dozens pleads not guilty
Body of Ala. Teen, 17, Was Found Stabbed and Beaten in Creek, and 3 Girls Are Charged with Murder
14-year-old charged with murder after another teen was stabbed, Columbia police say

Obliviot

The WSJ reports on the attempted murder of a police officer in Philadelphia:

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. commented on the attempted murder of Officer Jesse Hartnett by Edward Archer. Archer told police he had shot Officer Hartnett in the name of Islam, because he (Archer) believes that “the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam.”

He’s right. In the United States, they do. So far.

Capt. James Clark, homicide unit commander, reported that Archer repeatedly said, “[T]he reason I did what I did,” is that he (Archer) had pledged fealty to the Islamic State and is a follower of Allah.

In the same press conference Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D) took guidance (though he didn’t go so far as to blame Officer Harnett) from the Mayor of Cologne, and the Stockholm police. Mayor Kenney said, “In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam” had anything to do with the attack. Apparently, Commissioner Ross, homicide unit commander Clark – and everyone else – had moved to a different room, and Edward Archer wasn’t there either.

Maybe the Mayor was telling a Clinton-truth: The attack hadn’t anything to do with the teaching of Islam, it had to do with the learning of Islam. Or maybe the study of Facebook.

Mayor Kenny claims to better know the perp’s mind than the perp himself: Archer may have said over and over that he did it because of Islam, but he’s wrong.

Now, if the perp had claimed he was upset because of Planned Parenthood, that would be different.

The 44 crimes Oakland can afford

I noted that police in Oakland, California have said they will no longer respond to 44 types of crime after the city was forced to lay off 80 officers for budgetary reasons.  My take; “When the taxpayer suffers significant economic reverses, police and fire protection are among the first services to be threatened by the adminocrat/union axis.”

I also speculated that the benefits were probably “Cadillac.” Well, RTWT, but here’s a look at Oakland police compensation and benefits:

  • total compensation for an OPD employee averages $162,000 per year
  • high end health plan premium paid entirely by the city
  • the city pays the entire pension contribution – 9% of salary and overtime


Update 11:05AM

Why Would 80 Police Officers Cost Oakland $100 Million?

Little noticed in the story of the Oakland police layoffs and the city’s ensuing crime spree is that less than six years ago Oaktown voters approved a tax specifically to pay for more cops.

I find this uncomfortably close to a proposal by the Ingham County Commissioners for additonal taxation to continue rural patrols.

See no evil. Hear no evil. But, hey, send us an online report.

Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don’t Call the Cops

[Oakland, CA Police] Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line.

Other crimes where Oakland Police are saying “don’t call us, we’ll call you” include:

  • possession of forged notes [I think that means counterfeit currency]
  • pass fictitious check
  • obtain money by false voucher
  • fraudulent use of access cards

And two items that just had to be on the list of crimes to which Oakland Police will not respond:

  • extortion
  • attempted extortion

That last makes eminent sense, since it would be unseemly for Oakland police to suppress attempted extortion, when they are collaborating with the City government to practice it. 

So, to all the Progressives out there who natter incessantly, “Well, do those small government tea party fools want to go without police protection?”: You’re trumped. When the taxpayer suffers significant economic reverses, police and fire protection are among the first services to be threatened by the adminocrat/union axis:

The sticking point in negotiations appears to be job security. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions, which would save the city about $7.8 million toward a multi-million dollar deficit. The police union agreed, as long as the city could promise no layoffs for three years.

What do you bet those are ‘defined benefit’ and not ‘defined contribution’ pensions? I’ll give even odds that the pensions, as currently constituted, pay 75% of highest (or last) salary and do so for life after 30 years service.  I’ll bet the retirees also have high-quality health insurance coverage, and that it costs them little to nothing.


Oakland residents can hope that they will not experience any of the recent unrest going forward, because:

Most of the officers who will be affected by the layoffs were on the streets of Oakland when Johannes Mehserle’s involuntary manslaughter conviction caused riots last Thursday.

And they won’t be next time because they couldn’t get 3 year employment guarantees.  Oh well, if they didn’t get such guarantees in exchange for contributing a piddling amount to pensions compared to private sector employees, in order to obtain superb benefits unavailable to private sector employees, then I guess they’ll just have to find happiness in not being on the streets during the next riot.

Locally, there is a parallel:  Ingham County is threatening to withdraw rural police patrols unless rural residents vote to pay more taxes specifically for the Ingham County Sheriff’s Department. County Comissioners seem to be saying, “The contract is up, and we are raising our prices for policing, for rural residents only.”  There has been no cogent explanation of how this essential service came to be on the chopping block compared to other services “offered” by the County.  There’s been no suggestion of an across the board cut in spending, for example.  That suggestion failed to materialize even while part-time employees of the County Road Commission continue to have Cadillac health insurance benefits and a few County employees recently received 20% raises.  Match that in the private sector.

I wonder just what what part of “County” the Ingham County Commissioners fail to grasp? What is the point of the Ingham County Sheriff’s Department if it does not patrol the County, and where is my tax cut when the County ceases to provide services for which I contracted? 

Apparently, my savings are in the Commissioners concession to forgo raising my taxes if I give up the service.  I don’t like their attitude, so the question of replacing the ICSD in toto should be on our ballot.  Ingham County can submit a bid.

When local governments ante up on the protection racket, it increasingly seems you’d be better off on your own.

Police states

Police and courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are conspiring to prohibit videotaping of police officers publicly performing their official duties. The intent is to stop citizens from documenting official police behavior under any and all circumstances.

It is incompatible with a free society for police officers to even expect privacy in the conduct of their official duties while on public property, much less to have courts explicitly grant that privilege. It is an outrage that simply recording the public conduct of public officials can attract a felony charge. All that is equally true for private property when the person doing the recording has permission to be there.

It is common for corporations to insist that their employees can have no expectation of privacy while using company equipment, for example, to send email. Some public officials in Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland seem to have forgotten by whom they are employed.

One must wonder how much jail time these states would have given to those who videotaped the beating of Rodney King.