Creating racism where there is none… is RACISM, people!

Yet again, Springfield P.D. has been deemed racist by the black community, this time because they had the nerve to do their job.

Our story begins on a traffic stop at 18th & Pine. SPD had this guy pulled over because they were alerted he may have a gun. So they’re speaking with him, and they ask him to step out of the car after they witness him acting suspiciously and reaching under the seat. Probably just looking for his registration and insurance card, no doubt.

Then he takes off. (red flag #1)

SPD engages him in a brief chase (according to officers, at more than 40 MPH above the posted speed limit) and soon end the pursuit, then his car is spotted on Taylor Ave. The driver hits an occupied vehicle that was on the side of the road then ditches the car at the Abundant Faith church, jumping from the moving car (red flag #2), which hit a car in the lot and then the church itself, and then runs into the church, while a service was being conducted. He was singled out by the churchgoers to officers as they followed after him. He kept his hand in his pocket (red flag #3), and wouldn’t allow officers to put his arms behind his back (red flag #4), causing him to get Tasered. A weapon was not found on him or in his car- though he said he could take them to a gun if the charges could disappear (”how much would it take…”)- but they did find pot, and over $800, on him.

I’ve never had $800 in travelers’ checks on me while on vacation, let alone real money. Who the hell carries that kind of cash around? (I have a guess…)

So enter our players.

The pastor of the church (and the alderman of that ward has jumped on board as well) is screaming “racism” because of the fact that this incident occurred in an east-side church, and would supposedly have been handled far differently at a “west-side church”. The pastor is quoted in the paper as saying he didn’t want to “play a race card” and that “it’s not my desire to cause a divide between blacks and whites or between east side and west side”.

My personal opinion, that’s a load of total bullshit. I believe that was exactly his desire. I think he saw the opportunity to create a racial issue out of nothing and ran with it and then recruited the alderman for support and extra media coverage.

First of all, right or wrong, police officers have to assume every subject they stop or encounter at least potentially has a weapon. It’s the same principle of universal precautions in hospitals- you have to assume every patient has something infectious and use safe practices with every patient. Same as with the police- if they don’t at least recognize the possibility of a subject having a weapon, they can die. What’s more, that was the whole reason they pulled this guy over in the first place- they were alerted to the possibility that he may have a gun. Turned out he didn’t at the time of the arrest, but he supposedly knew the whereabouts of one, provided all his troubles up to that point just sort of vanish. How convenient. Oh, and he did have marijuana and an exorbitant amount of cash on him too.

Secondly- and this is the key that certain individuals seem to be all too willing to overlook- the guy ran from the police. People who run from the police are always guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t run. Unless they’re just stupid. Plus, this guy has a history of manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance as well as aggravated unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. That’s aggravated unlawful use OF A WEAPON.

But let’s look at some other scenarios: suppose the guy did have a weapon and burst into the church. Right there, you would almost certainly have a hostage situation. Then there would have been all sorts of criticism of the police department- either they were too aggressive or not aggressive enough. Or suppose it did happen at a west-side church, although what the location of the church has to do with anything is beyond me. Would the police have rushed in after him or not, disrupting the service? Should the police have rushed in after him or not? Again, where the church lies geographically has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Suppose all the officers involved were black. Would the same uproar have been made? I think not. I do think there are at least some race issues that exist, but SPD is in a no-win situation no matter what they do. If they follow him into the church, they’re racist because it was on the east side of town, with people assuming SPD thinks that’s where all the trouble is. If they don’t follow him into the church then they’re racist for not diffusing the situation quickly enough because it was on the east side of town, with people assuming SPD thinks it’s not worth their attention.

It’s easy to point fingers at the police department. But walk in their shoes and see how easy it is to do their job, only to be criticized for everything they do and everything they don’t do.

Again, I do believe that there are some issues at the city and at the police department that need to be addressed, but screaming “racism” every single time blacks or the east side of Springfield is involved with something, with no basis for the accusation other than blind assumption, just further compounds the problem and is also racism itself. As I’ve had to state many times here before, you cannot allege racism and then follow it with a racist statement of your own. To do so is racist (and also lends itself to showing yourself as a complete idiot).

But I guess the moral of the story is that it’s okay to be a racist- as long as you’re not white.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, America.

Guns don’t kill people…

In the aftermath of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University, the big gun control debate has yet again reared its ugly head.

It’s really very simple, folks: guns don’t kill people; killers kill people.

If someone is poisoned, nobody launches a tirade against the poison. Or at least, they shouldn’t. Their ire is more appropriately directed at the poisoner. If someone is stabbed, are we supposed to ban knives? No. Using the “guns must be banned” philosophy, what do you do in cases of arson? Exactly how will you do away with fire? Ridiculous? Exactly. And with that philosophy, I don’t even want to know what those people want to do about sexual assaults.

And WHY doesn’t Illinois have the death penalty again?!

In one of the most inexplicably stupid acts in all of politics, former Illinois governor George Ryan effectively abolished the death penalty in Illinois, in one his his last acts of governor before himself ultimately being sent to prison- NOT on a death sentence, mind you, but the asshole still has yet to serve a single day. That’s another story.

This changed more than 100 inmates’ sentences from “death” to life- in a way, pardoning them for their crimes.

Read this story and explain to me why this was a good idea.

I could expound for hours on the faults of the whole parole program, but I won’t. A little too touchy (and close) a subject for me. Anyway, prosecutors are looking into pursuing the death penalty for this jagoff. Now check me if I’m wrong, but if the death penalty has been “repealed” or “abolished”, what is the point of sentencing anyone to death? If you’re not going to execute them, why bother pretending you’re going to? Is a “death” sentence supposed to serve as nothing more than an indicator of just how heinous a crime a person committed?