GARCIA LEADS ON LONG-OVERDUE LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM
COMING TO HARRIS COUNTY
In the wake of the murder of George Floyd, Commissioner Adrian Garcia supported several proposed new law enforcement procedures to help end police misconduct
Adrian Garcia
Harris County, TX — Following his attendance at the funeral for George Floyd Tuesday, and after a marathon session of Harris County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia was on the forefront of several criminal justice reform measures that were ultimately passed by court. The aim of these measures is to create meaningful change to immediately reduce and eventually eliminate misconduct by county law enforcement officials.
Due to the items’ approval, Harris County will soon begin evaluating the following (for expected additional future court action): investigating a standardization of use-of-force tactics, increasing public reporting when law enforcement officials are accused of misconduct, additional sharing of body-cam footage from officer-involved deaths and injuries of suspects, considering a shift in who responds to mental health distress calls, as well as several other groundbreaking moves.
“Though it occured in Minnesota, here in Harris County, however, the tragic death of George Floyd will not have happened in vain. Real reform of how officers deal with the public is coming, so that going forward, what happened to George will hopefully never be repeated in the county where he grew up. I thank my colleagues on Commissioners Court for their assistance in getting these items approved,” said Commissioner Garcia.
SUMMARY OF ITEMS APPROVED BY COURT:
Resolution honoring the life of George Floyd, acknowledging and decrying racist law enforcement procedures that led to his death (passed 4-1)
Evaluation and eventual recommendations to propose standardization of use-of-force tactics (3 motions – all passed, 5-0, 4-1, & 4-1)
Engaging the community to discuss best practices for county law enforcement budgets (passed unanimously)
Study to evaluate who best should respond to potential mental health crises (passed unanimously)
Consideration of a Community Oversight Board (passed unanimously)
Analysis of racial disparities in incarceration rates (passed unanimously)
Note: Some of these measures approved by Commissioners Court were proposed by other members. Commissioner Garcia voted in favor of all of them.
Those are fairly modest proposals and included some Republican support. But in today’s Harris County Republican Party, this is scary stuff. From the Harris County Republican Party Executive Committee (non-official) Facebook page:
Good grief. Defunding the police? Sending UN peacekeepers into US cities? Planning to keep the riots going? All to keep DJT from being re-elected!
Of course. This folks, is your modern Harris County Republican Party. Damn shame it’s gotten to this.
The idea that Adrian Garcia, former HPD officer and former Harris County Sheriff would propose defunding police is ludicrous.
Anyone that doesn’t see a need to change and demilitarize our community police forces is simply refusing to face the current reality. To whine and moan about these innocuous measures by the Harris County Commissioners Court is just plain nuts.
A police chief is supposed to have the backs of his officers. When they do wrong he is supposed to punish them. And he is right in condemning the wrongful actions of an officer from another department like the deadly kneeing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis cop.
Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo was about to be fired from a scandal-ridden Austin Police Department when he was rescued by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. Not the smartest move Old Sly ever made.
Like civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, Acevedo has never passed up a photo-op ever since he became Houston’s top cop. He made a compete fool of himself when he appeared before the TV cameras to address the botched Harding Street raid.
Lately Acevedo has been photographed marching arm in arm with the George Floyd protesters, kneeling with them and hugging them. He is too stupid to realize the protests are not just about Floyd’s death, but that the protesters are also demonstrating against what Black Lives Matter claims is systemic police brutality against blacks and institutional police racism. By demonstrating with the protesters, Acevedo appears to agree with the false accusations by Black Lives Matter.
Acevedo’s participation in the protests even got him an interview on NBC’s Today show. Now that was a photo-op he’ll really relish the rest of his life. And it probably made Old Sly proud too.
As a former law enforcement officer and criminal justice professor, I worked with many law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles and Houston police departments. Yes, there are racist cops, but I can assure you that there is no systemic police brutality or institutional police racism. Some have accused me of being unwilling to recognize racism when I see it, but believe me, I do recognize bigotry and discrimination where and when it occurs.
Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and race-baiter Al Sharpton who coined the phrase “No Justice – No Peace” can be expected to march in lockstep with the protesters, but in his role as Chief of the Police, Acevedo is not a civil rights activist.
In Houston, the police have shot dead six men in six weeks, five of them black or Latino. The cops did not shoot them because they were black or Latino, but because at the time they were perceived to be an imminent threat to the lives of the officers. The families of the deceased claim the shootings were not necessary.
What did Acevedo do in his latest photo-op? He hugged some of the family members of the six men killed by his officers.
Acevedo is too ignorant to realize that by hugging the family members he appears to be agreeing with them that his officers should not have killed the six men. How do you think that makes Houston’s cops feel?
The poor excuse for a police chief should have been canned after the Harding Street fiasco, but it looks like as long as Sly Turner is mayor, we will be stuck with dickhead Acevedo.
(note: this post has been updated below to reflect Keith’s decision to step aside as Chair-elect of the HCRP)
Keith Nielsen, chair-elect of the Harris County Republican Party, is facing calls for resignation for what many Texas leaders are calling a racist post on Facebook. His defenders are calling it nothing more than a gaffe for which he has apologized and he need not step aside. For those unaware of the controversy, here you go:
Again for those unaware, that quote is from Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The banana is, of course, a long time symbol of racism towards blacks by comparing them to monkeys.
Keith apologized, then deleted the apology. In this Houston Chronicle article by Jasper Scherer, Nielsen is quoted as reposting the image with the banana because in his childhood home, they used the word “bananas” instead of curse words and he was trying to differentiate between protesters and rioters.
Tone deaf much, yes but should he decline to accept the position for which he was duly elected? Many Texas Republicans certainly think so.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick:
“I have called on the chair of Bexar County and the chair-elect of Harris County to step down because of their recent outrageous and racist statements on social media. The Texas Republican Party represents the majority of Texans — conservatives who are united by principles of freedom, faith and equality for every Texan. There is no room for racism or hatred, in our party — let alone in a leadership position.
“Going forward, we know that some Democrats and their allies in the media will continue to throw out charges of “racism” anytime they disagree with us on any issue. Without taking that bait, we should continue to unequivocally condemn racism where we see it in our party and in their party.
“As have said before, in times of crisis all Texans come together. During this past week Texas has seen primarily peaceful protests including a march of over 60,000 people in Houston. During Hurricane Harvey we were one Texas — nobody cared who was on the roof or who was in the boat. Our state has one of the most diverse populations in the world. We know there is more work to be done in bringing us all together and ensuring that every Texan is respected, treated equally and prospers.
“But we cannot do this alone. Scripture commands us to love one another as we love ourselves. We can’t do that unless we love God and put him first in all that we do. He is the answer to healing our nation.”
Rep. Dan Crenshaw:
Keith Nielsen has no place in our party. Not now. Not ever. It is a sad reminder that such blatant ignorance and bigotry still exists. When we see it, it’s our duty to unequivocally condemn it and make sure that people like him have no place in our politics.
Rep. Michael McCaul:
The Facebook post made by the Harris County GOP Chair-elect was racist and unacceptable. Keith Nielsen should tender his resignation immediately. Racism has no place in the Republican Party, the state of Texas or the United States of America.
Ed Hubbard:
I have known Keith Neilsen of several years, and my wife and I have worked with him and his wife in Republican organizations. I like them both, have hoped that Keith would succeed as the new HCRP Chair, and have been prepared to help him in any way I could to succeed. Moreover, I have no doubt that about his the sincerity of his beliefs and motives, or his desire to improve relations between our party and those African-American neighbors who currently support the Democrats but who agree with us on so many issues.
Based on all of this, I was shocked to see the post Keith uploaded to social media quoting MLK with the picture of a banana.
Regardless of his intent, the message seen and perceived of putting these two images together does nothing but reinforce the distrust of our party among many of our neighbors. Although I like Keith and wish him well, this is not the message or perception the party of Lincoln should be making at any time—let alone in the midst of the ordeal we now face as a country. Although Keith removed the post and has apologized, this is a bell that cannot be un-rung in this age of social media, and it will impede our efforts to try to re-build trust with our neighbors. Frankly, it will haunt us and our candidates this fall.
It is for these reasons, that I join so many leaders of our party, including Senator Cruz, Commissioner Bush, and Congressmen Crenshaw, Hurd and Roy, in condemning the gross lack of judgment behind this post, and the perception it reinforced among our neighbors; and I sadly join them in asking Keith to resign his position as HCRP Chair-elect to allow the HCRP Executive Committee to elect a new chair this summer.
You get the gist of their complaints.
And I get it. The job of the HCRP Chair is to bring people to the party, not keep them away. Does this racist post/gaffe help in that regard? No. Does it hurt? Not really.
What? Not really, I say? Yep. Not a single person is going to stay away from voting Republican because of this Facebook post. Not one. The fact is that yes, Democrats will use it to tell votes that Republicans are racist. Guess what? If Keith declines to take the role, they will STILL use it against Republicans. So really, what is to be gained by Keith stepping aside?
Nothing.
Now, I’m not saying he should or shouldn’t step aside. I’ll leave that up to Keith. I’m simply saying that it isn’t going to help or hurt the HCRP regardless of his decision. He probably should stay and fight if he wants to reclaim the good name he has had in the party for many years but again, I’ll leave that up to him.
From a purely political perspective, I think he should stay. Harris County Republicans are going to be crushed in November. It would be nice to have a sacrificial lamb as the head of the party and then choose someone to lead the party back to some success in 2022 when we don’t have the stigma of Donald Trump at the head of the ballot. Besides, if he declines to accept the post, the HCRP Executive Committee will choose the new chair – talk about a disaster. This group is now led by the most radical of radicals in the party. On second thought, maybe it would be fun to see whom they would choose.
I reached out to Dr. Steven Hotze for his thoughts on Keith. After all, if it weren’t for Dr. Hotze’s support, Keith would never have been elected in the first place. This is what he had to say:
I cannot imagine that Keith intended to disrespect blacks with his post.
If I were him, then I would just ignore the cries to resign.
UPDATE: Keith Nielsen has decided to step aside and will not be Chair of the HCRP. Via his Facebook post:
I have spent my entire adult life supporting conservative candidates and causes and I am grateful for the thousands of supporters who have reached out to me over the last several days. I regret that I must step aside as Chairman-elect of the Harris County Republican Party and will not be taking office on Aug. 3rd. I will continue to stand up for the values that have made our country great…“Faith, family and freedom.” Dr. King’s quote is as relevant today as when it was delivered. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Concerning Keith’s statement, Senator Paul Bettencourt said, “The true measure of a person is what they do in the face of adversity. I respect Keith for his decision and thank him for his years of service to the HCRP.”
With much of the nation engulfed in race rioting curfews are in place in numerous locations. One theme the keeps reappearing is that conservatives are inconsistent with their values in that they oppose the Covid emergency orders, but support the curfews in response to the rioting. While the argument is superficially appealing a closer examination shows there are some distinct differences between the governmental actions. At the outset, I’ll acknowledge this is comparing somewhat different legal frameworks. To answer the argument I am using riot related criteria: a time, place, and manner limitation, and is the governmental action narrowly tailored to achieve the governmental interest. To narrow the focus I am using Houston as the example since the local officials did a relatively good job controlling the riots.
Rioting
There’s no doubt the government has some authority to restrict assembly. But the rules for restriction are clear. With the riots doubtless some people who are attempting to peaceably assemble had their rights to assemble restricted. Given the sheer scale of the rioting it’s not possible to separate the honest protest individuals from rioters. We have a recent history, too, of BLM suddenly turning from peaceable to not. During the last significant protest they blocked 288, and when someone tried to get through to have an asthma attack treated they were assaulted. In the current rioting Ashton Woods threw the first punch in a street right. There’s videos of mob activity damaging random vehicles.
While people like to talk in terms of clear and present danger the test is actually imminent lawlessness. Given the recent history of blocking the streets, the current attempts to block the streets, Ashton Woods initiating a street fight, and the ongoing damage coupled with the inability to tell who is peaceable and who is not the imminent lawlessness test would seem to be met and restrictions are appropriate.
With the test met how does the government narrowly tailor the restrictions to meet their concerns? If a riot/peaceable meter were over everyone’s head it would be easy. Set the objective level and restrict. No such meter exists though; so rules of general applicability issue. Although the governmental action was not wholly successful to be fair the failures have not been widespread. This largely successful riot control doesn’t help the poor victims who have had their property damaged, especially since insurance coverage does not cover riots, but from an absolute instance standpoint the amount of lawlessness has been relatively contained. It’s also easy to adjust greater or lesser restrictions so the current restrictions are pretty much on point. While some degree of lawlessness and damage was tolerated; by and large the situation was contained by a limited governmental response. This narrow tailoring to the threat posed by the rioters seems justified.
Covid
Now compare that with the Covid restrictions. Is there a governmental interest? To a point. We don’t want the hospitals to be overrun, but we also don’twant to prevent all virus transmission. The stated government purpose was flatten the curve. That’s a misnomer; the goal is to keep the hospitals from being overrun. In light of the horrors in New York City some form of restrictions are appropriate. The whole it’s my right to go out criticisms fail because, despite complaints to the contrary, there is a governmental interest at stake.
Once a governmental interest is established – and one has been – the question is are the restrictions narrowly tailored to meet the government’s interest. Here’s where the legitimate criticism arises. The hospital capacity is not threatened, and the county spent millions to create unneeded extra capacity. The medical center has been publishing hospital utilization information for the Covid crisis. Three charts tell the tale of the threat posed to the local community.
Texas Medical Center ICU Capacity June 3, 2020
Hospital ICU capacity is not threatened. On June 3, 2020 ICU occupancy stood at 219 Covid cases and 964 other cases, with 279 remaining unoccupied beds at base levels of capacity. On top of base capacity the hospitals have a plan for another 1,187 beds if necessary. We don’t want to see those additional beds become necessary, but at the same time the number of Covid related ICU occupancy could double and the baseline capacity would be able to handle the case load. With baseline ICU capacity not threatened it’s difficult to justify strict stay at home orders and mandatory masks.
June 3, 2020 is a single snapshot. What do the historical numbers tell us? The medical center has been publishing that information also. The data there is both comforting and concerning at the same time.
Texas Medical Center Covid Hospitalizations June 3, 2020
This graph shows daily hospitalizations with a 7 day moving average. The graph also notes the Phase I and Phase II openings. Unfortunately, the graph does not show data from the initial executive order implementing the stay at home restrictions. The graph starts with the order extending the stay at home order. With that order there was a generally quick rising daily hospital admission count at first that was quickly followed by a steadily falling admission count. Presumably, this is what lead to the phased reopening plan, and is the point where Governor Abbott and Judge Hidalgo’s paths separated.
Hospital admissions are not the only consideration. ICU utilization is a more important marker to look at since it is where the threat of death occurs. The medical center has published information regarding this matter. As you can see in the chart below, the ICU utilization data closely follows hospitalization data allowing for the same conclusions as with hospitalizations.
Texas Medical Center Covid ICU Occupancy June 3, 2020
It’s noteworthy that the current ICU utilization is at similar levels as the high point following the March 31 order Governor Abbott issued. With the baseline capacity never threatened, and staggering economic harm arising from the restrictions it’s difficult to say the restrictions were narrowly tailored to meet the government’s interest. This is especially highlighted by the fact that the phased relaxing of restrictions has not caused a hospital capacity crisis. The local digging in on we can’t open up yet only magnifies the belief that the degree of restrictions are too broad.
Governor Abbott Should Not Have Implemented Phase III
Just because the data shows that Phase I did not have a detrimental impact on the hospitals it doesn’t mean we can simply say that the need for restrictions are over. The hospitalization and ICU utilization data both show a slow, but steady, increase in cases since phase II was implemented. We can’t extrapolate since the utilization is near or at the high point of when the initial stay at home order started dropping. Although the ICU utilization isn’t stressed we also do not see a Phase II rise end. Prudence says stay the course rather than loosen up.
Sadly, will not be able to have meaningful data for the effect of the Phase III implementation. Many tens of thousands of people were out in close quarters in the streets over the past week, doubtless including Covid carriers. A rise in hospitalization and ICU utilization cannot be attributed to either Phase III or the protesting. The time period and sheer number of individuals in close proximity prevents contact tracing. We simply can’t know what the etiology of the soon to appear increases.
Conclusion
So, to answer the argument. Are conservatives being inconsistent in saying Covid restrictions are a violation of rights, but supporting curfews in response to rioting? Yes, superficially, in the sense that some degree of governmental restriction appeared to be needed to respond to a governmental interest. However, that’s a straw man argument those critical of conservatives are raising. If we raise the steel man version of the argument that the implemented Covid governmental response is not narrowly tailored to meet the governmental interest someone can easily support the curfew and not support the local Covid restrictions that Judge Hidalgo is calling for.
It was almost 5 years ago that I wrote a post on this site related to the arrest and death of Sandra Bland: https://bigjolly.com/simple-traffic-stop-call-action/. That post sparked some interesting discussions in the comments to this site, on Facebook and other sites, face-to-face, and even led the Dallas Morning News to reprint a version in its online and print editions, which led to further comments. But soon afterwards, we all moved on.
Now, I again offer my condolences to another family—the family of George Floyd—who are left grieving after a tragedy that should not have happened.
As I’ve watched and listened to all that has transpired over the last week after the death of George Floyd, I sadly realize that very little has changed over the last 5 years, and that the same raw feelings that were aroused by the traffic stop, and its aftermath, in Waller County in 2015 have continued to boil just beneath the surface of our society. Now a lot of steam is escaping and many of us are left wondering, again, how we got here and how we will move forward.
Whatever might have justified the police officers’ original detention of George Floyd, nothing justified the actions taken by those officers after he was subdued. For some reason we may never know, any mercy for the neighbor those officers had in their custody slipped away during the 8-plus minutes caught on video. As we all watched the video with a degree of horror, it reinforced the fear and distrust that so many of our African-American neighbors have about the way they are perceived and treated by the rest of their fellow citizens. Although none of the looting and violence that followed is justified, the protests are justified; and the conversations they are sparking are long overdue and must continue.
Today, I am left with the same observation I made 5 years ago, but now with a sense of even greater urgency:
… It is a national tragedy that so many of our neighbors wake each morning believing that their countrymen don’t think they matter, and wondering whether they will live through that day. In fact, it is not just a tragedy—I agree with some of the leaders of #BlackLivesMatter movement when they call the current situation a “state of emergency.” …
Remember, if we truly believe in a limited federal government and in the power of families, the private sector and local governments to address most issues, our neighbors must trust each other and their local governments. That trust starts with each of us recognizing and protecting the humanity of all our neighbors, every day, in every situation. …
A progressive tide of politics has swept over the Democratic Party over the last 5 years since I made that observation, as has a populist tide washed over the Republican Party. The disunity fueled by these often opposite movements appears to have worsened recently in reaction to the deaths, lockdowns and economic hardships caused by the unexpected emergence of COVID-19. Now, in this context of disunity, history forces us also to confront what we failed to confront 5 years ago, let alone 50 or 100 years ago.
Frankly, I don’t know what mix of private and public action is needed at this time to address the fundamental issues raised by George Floyd’s death, or whether any mix of proposals would be acceptable right now to a majority of our politicians, let alone our citizens. So, I am left, for now, with a suggestion as to how to start the conversation.
Because this issue is so fraught with emotion, and opens such deep wounds for our society, maybe it is best to start with a proposition from those Founding Fathers who published the Virginia Declaration of Rights a few weeks before the Declaration of Independence:
… it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Or, as simply stated in the Gospel According to Matthew:
Do to men what you wish men do to you.
If these ideals for humane, compassionate action (shared, in one way or another, by most societies and religions in human history) guide our approach, I am confident we eventually will find our way through the current disunity and begin to address, once and for all, the distrust at the core of our current discontent with appropriate actions that retain the best of our society’s ideals, institutions, and traditions, while guiding us all to a better future.
Again, I have no idea what answers we will find along this journey, and, because of our ancestors’ failure to properly address this problem, we are left with few guideposts to follow. But I know we all must now take this journey in order for our society, and its ideals and promises, to endure. History will not be kind to us if we try to wait another 5 (or 50, or 100) years to start this journey.
The death of Houston native George Floyd by the knee of a Minneapolis cop has left the US with what can best be described as an insurrection. What started out as a peaceful protest in Minneapolis morphed into assaults against the police, the burning of businesses and police cars, and widespread looting in more than 40 cities from coast to coast and from north to south.
Black Lives Matter and white liberals would have you think racism was behind the killing of Floyd as they do just about every time a white cop shoots dead a white man.
Whenever an unarmed black man is killed by the police, the hue and cry goes up that he was killed because he was black. Here are some of the most notable cases.
In August 2014, NY cops tried to arrest Eric Garner, a 400-pound giant. During a struggle when he resisted arrest, officer Daniel Pantaleo applied what appeared to be a choke hold while Garner uttered the now famous words: “I can’t breathe.” Pantaleo was never charged by the DA or the Feds, but he was unjustly fired and stripped of his pension in August 2019 at the insistence of Sandinista-loving Mayor Bill de Blasio.
In August 2014, Michael Brown Jr., who had committed a strongarm robbery at a convenience store a short while earlier, was shot dead by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson as he tried to defend himself from a physical assault by the 300-pound giant.
In October 2014, Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke shot dead Laquan McDonald as he was walking away from the police. This was clearly an unjustified shooting and Van Dyke was convicted of 2nd-degree murder and several counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.
In November 2014, Tamir Rice, a 12-year old boy, was shot and killed by Cleveland police after officers mistook his toy gun for a real weapon.
In April 2015, Walter Scott was shot in the back while running away from North Charleston, South Carolina officer Michael Slager after a traffic stop for a broken taillight. This was clearly an unjustified shooting and Slager was deservedly charged with murder.
Also in April 2015, Freddie Gray died of a spinal cord injury a week after he was tossed into the back of a Baltimore police van. The officer driving the van was charged with 2nd-degree “depraved-heart” murder and five other Baltimore cops were charged with various crimes, including manslaughter. One officer’s trial ended in a mistrial and two others were acquitted. Charges against the remaining three were then dropped.
And now we have the killing of George Floyd, a Houston native who had been twice convicted of armed robbery. Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin was clearly wrong when he kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for seven minutes after Floyd begged the cops to stop because he could not breathe.
The killings of Laquan McDonald and Walter Scott were clearly unjustified and George Floyd’s death was unintended, but in all the cases listed above, there is no evidence the men were killed because they were black.
Let’s take a look at the number of whites, blacks and Hispanics shot dead by cops in 2017. 2018 and 2019.
In 2017: 457 whites, 223 blacks and 179 Hispanics.
In 2018: 399 whites, 209 Blacks and 148 Hispanics.
In 2019: 370 whites, 235 blacks and 158 Hispanics.
During those three years, there were a total of 667 blacks shot dead by the police as compare to 1,711 people who were not black.
Another way of looking at it is that blacks make up only 12 percent of the US population, but from 2015 – 2019 they accounted for 26.4% of those that were killed by the police. In other words, the police killed blacks at about twice their rate in the general population. Does that indicate that cops are a bunch of racist bastards? Of course not! The disparity results from the fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
So, let’s put cops killing blacks in its proper perspective. There are some 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US. They have to deal with countless thousands of incidents every day, some of the incidents being perceived as a deadly threat to the officers. Cops have been ambushed numerous times, mostly by black men, the most notable ambush being the killing of five Dallas police officers by a black man in July 2016.
The BLM rabble, liberals and the media continuously make a big deal out of cops shooting unarmed black men. But an unarmed man can overpower and kill a cop with his bare hands or may be perceived to be armed and an imminent threat to an officer’s life. Many years ago, two white Houston cops approached a black man who had been acting erratically in the street during the middle of the night. He shouted “Hey, I’ve got something for you” and pulled an object out of his pocket which he pointed it at them. In the dark, the two cops perceived the object to be a gun and killed him. The ‘gun’ turned out to be a bible. Tragic as this deadly incident was, the two cops were justified in shooting the poor man.
Yes, there are racist cops just like there are racists in the general society. But that does not necessarily mean racist cops discriminate against blacks.
There are no protests or riots over the daily slaughter of blacks by blacks in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles and other US cities.
Every so often a white cop among 800,000 law enforcement officers kills a black man. And sometimes when that happens, half the country sinks into chaos like now with the Floyd killing. The hoodlums who have been looting stores, setting buildings and police cars afire, and attacking police officers are encouraged to do so by Colin Kaepernick who calls them freedom fighters.
US law enforcement is accused of being beset with institutional racism by none other than former President Barack Obama. That’s a terrible accusation when there is little if any proof that white cops kill blacks because they are black.
