info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
We Need To Respect Black Culture By Getting Rid Of Laws, Says MSNBC
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Feb 15, 2024, 7:42:40 AMFeb 15
to
One pattern that has emerged over the past four presidential elections — ever
since Barack Obama — is that the national conversation, as directed by the
media, shifts back to race right around the time that the primaries are
wrapping up.
Of course, the primaries are technically still happening on the GOP side if
you count Nikki Haley as a real presidential candidate. When you realize that
she is, at this point, simply running to be the next overpaid CNN
contributor, you understand the primaries ended weeks ago, which means it is
now time for the race cycle to begin anew.
Right on cue, MSNBC released a new special this month called “Black Men In
America: The Road to 2024.” Now, based on the title, based on the timing,
based on the fact that it’s MSNBC, you might assume that the show
automatically is going to consist of a bunch of mindless race-baiting. You
might make that presumption without seeing a single second of it. You might
write it off, without giving it a chance, under the assumption that it’s
going to be nothing but idiotic, dim-witted racial grievance mongering. You
might assume all of that. And you would of course be entirely correct.
Yet, as you’ll see in the clip I’m about to show you, it still manages to
limbo its way under the incredibly low bar that you have set for it in your
mind. Watch:
https://youtu.be/Rpft5IEThD4
As you could see, that’s Ben Crump pretending to shoot pool with Al Sharpton.
In other words, it’s neo-Al Sharpton with old Al Sharpton. It’s broadband Al
Sharpton with Dial-Up Al Sharpton. Ben Crump is what happens if you clone Al
Sharpton but you remove his hair and his three brain cells. Because that’s
the thing you notice about Crump. He is, objectively speaking — and I say
this in a medical sense, and not as an insult — a moron. In fact, his very
existence single-handedly, and ironically, disproves systemic racism. There
is simply no way that a black guy this aggressively mediocre, this
consistently unimpressive, this simple-minded and ridiculous, could ever
achieve the success he has achieved in a country that was systemically racist
against black guys.
Sure, even in a country with systemic racism you could still end up with
brilliant and innovative people who manage to succeed in spite of it. The
existence of successful black people doesn’t in and of itself disprove
systemic racism. A million other things disprove it, but not that. But Ben
Crump, specifically? This guy? You want to tell me this guy rose to the top
despite having the entire system arrayed against him?
No, the truth is obviously quite the opposite. The system favors guys like
Crump, which is the only reason anyone knows his name. By all rights the
pinnacle of this dude’s career should be a position no higher than shift
manager at Wendy’s — with no disrespect intended to shift managers at
Wendy’s. The point is that his wealth and success is entirely a product of a
system designed to move mediocre half-wits like himself to the front.
As if to prove my point, what does he say? What’s the great insight he offers
the world? Well, he says that we can get rid of all the crime in America
overnight by changing the definition of crime. He’s right, of course. “Crime”
is a legal designation. If you stop applying that legal designation to
things, then it will not be applied to thing, and therefore you have gotten
rid of the designation. Stop calling murder, robbery, and rape “crimes,” and
— just like that, presto chango — the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape
have disappeared. This is evidently what Crump, a guy who somehow earned a
law degree, wants to see happen.
Of course, the problem is that by getting rid of the crimes of murder,
robbery, and rape, you have not gotten rid of the actions of murder, robbery
and rape. People are still being murdered, robbed, and raped — at what seems
to be an even higher rate now — but it doesn’t count in the books. The
assailants aren’t being brought to justice. The victims have nowhere to turn
for redress. All the bad things are still happening, but the law is covering
its eyes and plugging its ears and pretending that it’s not. That’s what
happens when you “get rid of crime,” as Crump suggests.
In fact every major city in America has adopted a strategy like this, to one
degree or another. Every major city, thanks in large part to Soros-funded
Marxist DAs, has decided to reduce crime by not fighting it. They’ve decided
to create fewer criminals by not calling the criminals “criminals.” As a
result, most of these places are unlivable hellscapes. Which is not a problem
for Crump, whose firm rakes in tens of millions of dollars a year. He’s not
living in these crime-infested sewers that ambulance-chasing con artists like
himself have helped to create.
Crump then goes on to claim that laws have the effect of “criminalizing black
culture.” He gives the example of Eric Garner, who died while police
attempted to take him into custody for selling loose cigarettes. Now, the law
against loose cigarettes isn’t as important or essential as laws against
murder and robbery, but the policy does make perfect sense. You aren’t
allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes from the convenience store and then stand
outside the convenience store selling each individual cigarette to people
walking by on the street. Why? Well, that’s not very fair to the convenience
store, for one thing. For another, there are all kinds of additional laws
governing the sale of tobacco products — laws that cannot be enforced if
people are allowed to walk around hawking individual cigarettes on the street
corner.
It’s not the most important law, but it is a law, and it’s one that makes
plenty of sense. The question in this case is why Eric Garner couldn’t just
follow the law. Is it “black culture” to simply disregard whatever law you
personally find inconvenient? That seems to be the claim Crump is making. But
all of that is irrelevant anyway. Garner didn’t die because he sold loose
cigarettes. Cops didn’t show up and stage a public execution as a penalty for
selling loosies, as they’re called. No, they tried to arrest him, he
resisted, and in the struggle he lost his life. Why resist? What is that
going to achieve? What possible good can come from it? Even if you disagree
with the law you broke. Even if you didn’t break a law at all. Even if you’re
being falsely accused. Even if you’re innocent. No matter the situation, how
does resisting arrest help your case at all? What good will it do you? What
is the plan? Walk me through the steps: Step 1) Resist arrest. Step 2)
Unknown. Step 3) You get to go home and have a pleasant day.
What happens in that second step? What did Eric Garner, or any of these BLM
martyrs, think that second step would be? Did he think that if he declined to
be arrested, the cops would just say, “Oh, you don’t want to be arrested?
You’d prefer not to be arrested this particular afternoon? Well, never mind
then, good sir. Please be on your way. Our apologies.” Was that the idea?
Well, we know the answer. There was no thought process behind it. He didn’t
have any ideas at all. He was acting in a totally thoughtless, self-
destructive manner, and responding to a situation in a way that was
guaranteed to make the situation worse, no matter what. Is that black
culture, according to Crump?
Crump also mentions George Floyd. He says Floyd was another man arrested for
participating in black culture. What was the culture in that case? Floyd was
trying to pass off a forged $20 bill. Is that black culture? He was
overdosing on fentanyl. Is that black culture? I’m not asking these questions
rhetorically. I would really like to hear Crump answer. I would like to know
what he considers “black culture” to be. I would not personally call any of
that black culture, but I will say that if it was black culture, then the
culture needs to change. If your culture — as Crump seems to think — involves
disregarding the law, being self-destructive, making decisions that are
guaranteed to introduce more chaos and violence into your life and your
community, then your culture is deeply flawed, terminally sick, and needs to
change.
The law doesn’t need to accommodate your culture. Your culture needs to
accommodate the fact that it exists in a civilized society with laws.
Naturally, Crump only talks about the laws against loose cigarettes and milk
cartons and baggy pants — as if anyone is actually being arrested for having
baggy pants. He completely ignores the obvious fact that black men are
arrested every day, in every city in America, for committing actual violent
crimes. Young black men aren’t landing in prison because of their milk
cartons and ill-fitting pants. But Crump, of course, doesn’t want to
acknowledge that. Because he is a liar, and he’s evil, and he doesn’t care
how many people die, or how many black men get themselves killed by making
the worst possible decisions, as long as he can personally profit off of it.
I began this by saying that Crump is stupid. And he certainly is. You can’t
listen to him for more than five seconds without arriving at that conclusion.
But like any other race baiter, he also knows exactly what he’s doing. He
pretends to speak up for “black culture” — whatever he thinks that is — while
at the same time doing everything he can to make black communities more
dangerous, poorer, bleaker, more miserable.
It’s not the white man keeping black communities down. It’s men like Ben
Crump. And he deserves to be held accountable for it.
--
Let's go Brandon!
since Barack Obama — is that the national conversation, as directed by the
media, shifts back to race right around the time that the primaries are
wrapping up.
Of course, the primaries are technically still happening on the GOP side if
you count Nikki Haley as a real presidential candidate. When you realize that
she is, at this point, simply running to be the next overpaid CNN
contributor, you understand the primaries ended weeks ago, which means it is
now time for the race cycle to begin anew.
Right on cue, MSNBC released a new special this month called “Black Men In
America: The Road to 2024.” Now, based on the title, based on the timing,
based on the fact that it’s MSNBC, you might assume that the show
automatically is going to consist of a bunch of mindless race-baiting. You
might make that presumption without seeing a single second of it. You might
write it off, without giving it a chance, under the assumption that it’s
going to be nothing but idiotic, dim-witted racial grievance mongering. You
might assume all of that. And you would of course be entirely correct.
Yet, as you’ll see in the clip I’m about to show you, it still manages to
limbo its way under the incredibly low bar that you have set for it in your
mind. Watch:
https://youtu.be/Rpft5IEThD4
As you could see, that’s Ben Crump pretending to shoot pool with Al Sharpton.
In other words, it’s neo-Al Sharpton with old Al Sharpton. It’s broadband Al
Sharpton with Dial-Up Al Sharpton. Ben Crump is what happens if you clone Al
Sharpton but you remove his hair and his three brain cells. Because that’s
the thing you notice about Crump. He is, objectively speaking — and I say
this in a medical sense, and not as an insult — a moron. In fact, his very
existence single-handedly, and ironically, disproves systemic racism. There
is simply no way that a black guy this aggressively mediocre, this
consistently unimpressive, this simple-minded and ridiculous, could ever
achieve the success he has achieved in a country that was systemically racist
against black guys.
Sure, even in a country with systemic racism you could still end up with
brilliant and innovative people who manage to succeed in spite of it. The
existence of successful black people doesn’t in and of itself disprove
systemic racism. A million other things disprove it, but not that. But Ben
Crump, specifically? This guy? You want to tell me this guy rose to the top
despite having the entire system arrayed against him?
No, the truth is obviously quite the opposite. The system favors guys like
Crump, which is the only reason anyone knows his name. By all rights the
pinnacle of this dude’s career should be a position no higher than shift
manager at Wendy’s — with no disrespect intended to shift managers at
Wendy’s. The point is that his wealth and success is entirely a product of a
system designed to move mediocre half-wits like himself to the front.
As if to prove my point, what does he say? What’s the great insight he offers
the world? Well, he says that we can get rid of all the crime in America
overnight by changing the definition of crime. He’s right, of course. “Crime”
is a legal designation. If you stop applying that legal designation to
things, then it will not be applied to thing, and therefore you have gotten
rid of the designation. Stop calling murder, robbery, and rape “crimes,” and
— just like that, presto chango — the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape
have disappeared. This is evidently what Crump, a guy who somehow earned a
law degree, wants to see happen.
Of course, the problem is that by getting rid of the crimes of murder,
robbery, and rape, you have not gotten rid of the actions of murder, robbery
and rape. People are still being murdered, robbed, and raped — at what seems
to be an even higher rate now — but it doesn’t count in the books. The
assailants aren’t being brought to justice. The victims have nowhere to turn
for redress. All the bad things are still happening, but the law is covering
its eyes and plugging its ears and pretending that it’s not. That’s what
happens when you “get rid of crime,” as Crump suggests.
In fact every major city in America has adopted a strategy like this, to one
degree or another. Every major city, thanks in large part to Soros-funded
Marxist DAs, has decided to reduce crime by not fighting it. They’ve decided
to create fewer criminals by not calling the criminals “criminals.” As a
result, most of these places are unlivable hellscapes. Which is not a problem
for Crump, whose firm rakes in tens of millions of dollars a year. He’s not
living in these crime-infested sewers that ambulance-chasing con artists like
himself have helped to create.
Crump then goes on to claim that laws have the effect of “criminalizing black
culture.” He gives the example of Eric Garner, who died while police
attempted to take him into custody for selling loose cigarettes. Now, the law
against loose cigarettes isn’t as important or essential as laws against
murder and robbery, but the policy does make perfect sense. You aren’t
allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes from the convenience store and then stand
outside the convenience store selling each individual cigarette to people
walking by on the street. Why? Well, that’s not very fair to the convenience
store, for one thing. For another, there are all kinds of additional laws
governing the sale of tobacco products — laws that cannot be enforced if
people are allowed to walk around hawking individual cigarettes on the street
corner.
It’s not the most important law, but it is a law, and it’s one that makes
plenty of sense. The question in this case is why Eric Garner couldn’t just
follow the law. Is it “black culture” to simply disregard whatever law you
personally find inconvenient? That seems to be the claim Crump is making. But
all of that is irrelevant anyway. Garner didn’t die because he sold loose
cigarettes. Cops didn’t show up and stage a public execution as a penalty for
selling loosies, as they’re called. No, they tried to arrest him, he
resisted, and in the struggle he lost his life. Why resist? What is that
going to achieve? What possible good can come from it? Even if you disagree
with the law you broke. Even if you didn’t break a law at all. Even if you’re
being falsely accused. Even if you’re innocent. No matter the situation, how
does resisting arrest help your case at all? What good will it do you? What
is the plan? Walk me through the steps: Step 1) Resist arrest. Step 2)
Unknown. Step 3) You get to go home and have a pleasant day.
What happens in that second step? What did Eric Garner, or any of these BLM
martyrs, think that second step would be? Did he think that if he declined to
be arrested, the cops would just say, “Oh, you don’t want to be arrested?
You’d prefer not to be arrested this particular afternoon? Well, never mind
then, good sir. Please be on your way. Our apologies.” Was that the idea?
Well, we know the answer. There was no thought process behind it. He didn’t
have any ideas at all. He was acting in a totally thoughtless, self-
destructive manner, and responding to a situation in a way that was
guaranteed to make the situation worse, no matter what. Is that black
culture, according to Crump?
Crump also mentions George Floyd. He says Floyd was another man arrested for
participating in black culture. What was the culture in that case? Floyd was
trying to pass off a forged $20 bill. Is that black culture? He was
overdosing on fentanyl. Is that black culture? I’m not asking these questions
rhetorically. I would really like to hear Crump answer. I would like to know
what he considers “black culture” to be. I would not personally call any of
that black culture, but I will say that if it was black culture, then the
culture needs to change. If your culture — as Crump seems to think — involves
disregarding the law, being self-destructive, making decisions that are
guaranteed to introduce more chaos and violence into your life and your
community, then your culture is deeply flawed, terminally sick, and needs to
change.
The law doesn’t need to accommodate your culture. Your culture needs to
accommodate the fact that it exists in a civilized society with laws.
Naturally, Crump only talks about the laws against loose cigarettes and milk
cartons and baggy pants — as if anyone is actually being arrested for having
baggy pants. He completely ignores the obvious fact that black men are
arrested every day, in every city in America, for committing actual violent
crimes. Young black men aren’t landing in prison because of their milk
cartons and ill-fitting pants. But Crump, of course, doesn’t want to
acknowledge that. Because he is a liar, and he’s evil, and he doesn’t care
how many people die, or how many black men get themselves killed by making
the worst possible decisions, as long as he can personally profit off of it.
I began this by saying that Crump is stupid. And he certainly is. You can’t
listen to him for more than five seconds without arriving at that conclusion.
But like any other race baiter, he also knows exactly what he’s doing. He
pretends to speak up for “black culture” — whatever he thinks that is — while
at the same time doing everything he can to make black communities more
dangerous, poorer, bleaker, more miserable.
It’s not the white man keeping black communities down. It’s men like Ben
Crump. And he deserves to be held accountable for it.
--
Let's go Brandon!
BTR1701
Feb 15, 2024, 1:50:48 PMFeb 15
to
In article <uql0ro$39ro9$8...@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> One pattern that has emerged over the past four presidential elections-- ever
> since Barack Obama-- is that the national conversation, as directed by the
> this in a medical sense, and not as an insult-- a moron.
Well, Crump hasn't managed to manufacture a fake hate crime like Al
"Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did, and then libel the prosecutor in the case
like Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did, and then duck paying the
settlement for decades like Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did. And he
hasn't ignited race riots that cost lives like Al "Crown Heights"
Sharpton did. And then despite causing all that racist mayhem be allowed
to run for president as a Democrat by the Democrat Party and then given
a prime time TV show by a major network. So at this point Crump can only
be called a Sharpton wanna-be. He's just a pretender to the throne.
> In fact, his very existence single-handedly, and ironically, disproves
> systemic racism. There is simply no way that a black guy this aggressively
> mediocre, this consistently unimpressive, this simple-minded and ridiculous,
> could ever achieve the success he has achieved in a country that was
> systemically racist against black guys.
>
> Sure, even in a country with systemic racism you could still end up with
> brilliant and innovative people who manage to succeed in spite of it. The
> existence of successful black people doesn't in and of itself disprove
> systemic racism. A million other things disprove it, but not that. But Ben
> Crump, specifically? This guy? You want to tell me this guy rose to the top
> despite having the entire system arrayed against him?
>
> No, the truth is obviously quite the opposite. The system favors guys like
> Crump, which is the only reason anyone knows his name. By all rights the
> pinnacle of this dude's career should be a position no higher than shift
> manager at Wendy's-- with no disrespect intended to shift managers at
> rid of the designation. Stop calling murder, robbery, and rape "crimes" and--
> just like that, presto chango-- the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape
> and rape. People are still being murdered, robbed, and raped-- at what seems
> to be an even higher rate now-- but it doesn't count in the books. The
which leads the cops to not bother responding, then the merchants whose
entire inventories are being cleaned out on a weekly basis stop
bothering to call. Why bother? The cops won't come anyway so there's no
point. Which means the crime goes unreported and the statistics falsely
show crime decreasing. Which means the Soros-funded Marxist D.A.s can
beat their chests with pride and say, "See? Crime is down! My hands-off
approach works!" And the media stenographers dutifully report it without
making even the slightest effort to determine if his claim is actually
true or not. Meanwhile stores are closing like dominos and the city is a
nightmarish scene out of WALKING DEAD episode.
> They've decided to create fewer criminals by not calling the criminals
> "criminals". As a result, most of these places are unlivable hellscapes.
>
> Step (2) ????
>
> Step (3) You get to go home and have a pleasant day.
> personally call any of that black culture but I will say that if it was
> black culture, then the culture needs to change. If your culture-- as Crump
> seems to think-- involves disregarding the law, being self-destructive,
> how many people die or how many black men get themselves killed by making
> the worst possible decisions as long as he can personally profit off of it.
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> One pattern that has emerged over the past four presidential elections-- ever
> since Barack Obama-- is that the national conversation, as directed by the
> media, shifts back to race right around the time that the primaries are
> wrapping up.
> wrapping up.
> Right on cue, MSNBC released a new special this month called "Black Men In
> America: The Road to 2024". Now, based on the title, based on the timing,
> based on the fact that it's MSNBC, you might assume that the show
> automatically is going to consist of a bunch of mindless race-baiting. You
> might make that presumption without seeing a single second of it. You might
> write it off, without giving it a chance, under the assumption that it's
> going to be nothing but idiotic, dim-witted racial grievance mongering. You
> might assume all of that. And you would of course be entirely correct.
>
> Yet, as you'll see in the clip I'm about to show you, it still manages to
> limbo its way under the incredibly low bar that you have set for it in your
> mind. Watch:
>
> https://youtu.be/Rpft5IEThD4
>
> As you could see, that's Ben Crump pretending to shoot pool with Al Sharpton.
> In other words, it's neo-Al Sharpton with old Al Sharpton. It's broadband Al
> Sharpton with Dial-Up Al Sharpton. Ben Crump is what happens if you clone Al
> Sharpton but you remove his hair and his three brain cells. Because that's
> the thing you notice about Crump. He is, objectively speaking-- and I say
> automatically is going to consist of a bunch of mindless race-baiting. You
> might make that presumption without seeing a single second of it. You might
> write it off, without giving it a chance, under the assumption that it's
> going to be nothing but idiotic, dim-witted racial grievance mongering. You
> might assume all of that. And you would of course be entirely correct.
>
> Yet, as you'll see in the clip I'm about to show you, it still manages to
> limbo its way under the incredibly low bar that you have set for it in your
> mind. Watch:
>
> https://youtu.be/Rpft5IEThD4
>
> As you could see, that's Ben Crump pretending to shoot pool with Al Sharpton.
> In other words, it's neo-Al Sharpton with old Al Sharpton. It's broadband Al
> Sharpton with Dial-Up Al Sharpton. Ben Crump is what happens if you clone Al
> Sharpton but you remove his hair and his three brain cells. Because that's
> this in a medical sense, and not as an insult-- a moron.
Well, Crump hasn't managed to manufacture a fake hate crime like Al
"Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did, and then libel the prosecutor in the case
like Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did, and then duck paying the
settlement for decades like Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton did. And he
hasn't ignited race riots that cost lives like Al "Crown Heights"
Sharpton did. And then despite causing all that racist mayhem be allowed
to run for president as a Democrat by the Democrat Party and then given
a prime time TV show by a major network. So at this point Crump can only
be called a Sharpton wanna-be. He's just a pretender to the throne.
> In fact, his very existence single-handedly, and ironically, disproves
> systemic racism. There is simply no way that a black guy this aggressively
> mediocre, this consistently unimpressive, this simple-minded and ridiculous,
> could ever achieve the success he has achieved in a country that was
> systemically racist against black guys.
>
> Sure, even in a country with systemic racism you could still end up with
> brilliant and innovative people who manage to succeed in spite of it. The
> existence of successful black people doesn't in and of itself disprove
> systemic racism. A million other things disprove it, but not that. But Ben
> Crump, specifically? This guy? You want to tell me this guy rose to the top
> despite having the entire system arrayed against him?
>
> No, the truth is obviously quite the opposite. The system favors guys like
> Crump, which is the only reason anyone knows his name. By all rights the
> pinnacle of this dude's career should be a position no higher than shift
> Wendy's. The point is that his wealth and success is entirely a product of a
> system designed to move mediocre half-wits like himself to the front.
>
> As if to prove my point, what does he say? What's the great insight he offers
> the world? Well, he says that we can get rid of all the crime in America
> overnight by changing the definition of crime. He's right, of course. "Crime"
> is a legal designation. If you stop applying that legal designation to
> things, then it will not be applied to things, and therefore you have gotten
> system designed to move mediocre half-wits like himself to the front.
>
> As if to prove my point, what does he say? What's the great insight he offers
> the world? Well, he says that we can get rid of all the crime in America
> overnight by changing the definition of crime. He's right, of course. "Crime"
> is a legal designation. If you stop applying that legal designation to
> rid of the designation. Stop calling murder, robbery, and rape "crimes" and--
> just like that, presto chango-- the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape
> have disappeared. This is evidently what Crump, a guy who somehow earned a
> law degree, wants to see happen.
>
> Of course, the problem is that by getting rid of the crimes of murder,
> robbery, and rape, you have not gotten rid of the actions of murder, robbery,
> law degree, wants to see happen.
>
> Of course, the problem is that by getting rid of the crimes of murder,
> and rape. People are still being murdered, robbed, and raped-- at what seems
> to be an even higher rate now-- but it doesn't count in the books. The
> assailants aren't being brought to justice. The victims have nowhere to turn
> for redress. All the bad things are still happening but the law is covering
> its eyes and plugging its ears and pretending that it's not. That's what
> happens when you "get rid of crime" as Crump suggests.
>
> In fact every major city in America has adopted a strategy like this, to one
> degree or another. Every major city, thanks in large part to Soros-funded
> Marxist DAs, has decided to reduce crime by not fighting it.
And when they stop fighting crime, when the D.A. refuses to prosecute,
> In fact every major city in America has adopted a strategy like this, to one
> degree or another. Every major city, thanks in large part to Soros-funded
> Marxist DAs, has decided to reduce crime by not fighting it.
which leads the cops to not bother responding, then the merchants whose
entire inventories are being cleaned out on a weekly basis stop
bothering to call. Why bother? The cops won't come anyway so there's no
point. Which means the crime goes unreported and the statistics falsely
show crime decreasing. Which means the Soros-funded Marxist D.A.s can
beat their chests with pride and say, "See? Crime is down! My hands-off
approach works!" And the media stenographers dutifully report it without
making even the slightest effort to determine if his claim is actually
true or not. Meanwhile stores are closing like dominos and the city is a
nightmarish scene out of WALKING DEAD episode.
> They've decided to create fewer criminals by not calling the criminals
> Which is not a problem for Crump, whose firm rakes in tens of millions of
> dollars a year. He's not living in these crime-infested sewers that
> ambulance-chasing con artists like himself have helped to create.
>
> Crump then goes on to claim that laws have the effect of "criminalizing black
> culture". He gives the example of Eric Garner, who died while police
> dollars a year. He's not living in these crime-infested sewers that
> ambulance-chasing con artists like himself have helped to create.
>
> Crump then goes on to claim that laws have the effect of "criminalizing black
> attempted to take him into custody for selling loose cigarettes. Now, the law
> against loose cigarettes isn't as important or essential as laws against
> murder and robbery but the policy does make perfect sense. You aren't
> against loose cigarettes isn't as important or essential as laws against
> allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes from the convenience store and then stand
> outside the convenience store selling each individual cigarette to people
> walking by on the street. Why? Well, that's not very fair to the convenience
> store, for one thing. For another, there are all kinds of additional laws
> governing the sale of tobacco products-- laws that cannot be enforced if
> outside the convenience store selling each individual cigarette to people
> walking by on the street. Why? Well, that's not very fair to the convenience
> store, for one thing. For another, there are all kinds of additional laws
> people are allowed to walk around hawking individual cigarettes on the street
> corner.
>
> It's not the most important law but it is a law, and it's one that makes
> corner.
>
> plenty of sense. The question in this case is why Eric Garner couldn't just
> follow the law. Is it "black culture" to simply disregard whatever law you
> personally find inconvenient? That seems to be the claim Crump is making. But
> all of that is irrelevant anyway. Garner didn't die because he sold loose
> cigarettes. Cops didn't show up and stage a public execution as a penalty for
> selling loosies, as they're called. No, they tried to arrest him, he
> resisted, and in the struggle he lost his life. Why resist? What is that
> going to achieve? What possible good can come from it even if you disagree
> follow the law. Is it "black culture" to simply disregard whatever law you
> personally find inconvenient? That seems to be the claim Crump is making. But
> all of that is irrelevant anyway. Garner didn't die because he sold loose
> cigarettes. Cops didn't show up and stage a public execution as a penalty for
> selling loosies, as they're called. No, they tried to arrest him, he
> resisted, and in the struggle he lost his life. Why resist? What is that
> with the law you broke. Even if you didn't break a law at all. Even if you're
> being falsely accused. Even if you're innocent. No matter the situation, how
> does resisting arrest help your case at all? What good will it do you? What
> is the plan? Walk me through the steps:
>
> Step (1) Resist arrest.
> being falsely accused. Even if you're innocent. No matter the situation, how
> does resisting arrest help your case at all? What good will it do you? What
> is the plan? Walk me through the steps:
>
>
> Step (2) ????
>
> Step (3) You get to go home and have a pleasant day.
>
> What happens in that second step? What did Eric Garner, or any of these BLM
> martyrs, think that second step would be? Did he think that if he declined to
> be arrested, the cops would just say, "Oh, you don't want to be arrested?
> You'd prefer not to be arrested this particular afternoon? Well, never mind
> then, good sir. Please be on your way. Our apologies." Was that the idea?
>
> Well, we know the answer. There was no thought process behind it. He didn't
> have any ideas at all. He was acting in a totally thoughtless, self-
> destructive manner, and responding to a situation in a way that was
> guaranteed to make the situation worse no matter what. Is that black
> What happens in that second step? What did Eric Garner, or any of these BLM
> martyrs, think that second step would be? Did he think that if he declined to
> be arrested, the cops would just say, "Oh, you don't want to be arrested?
> You'd prefer not to be arrested this particular afternoon? Well, never mind
> then, good sir. Please be on your way. Our apologies." Was that the idea?
>
> Well, we know the answer. There was no thought process behind it. He didn't
> have any ideas at all. He was acting in a totally thoughtless, self-
> destructive manner, and responding to a situation in a way that was
> culture, according to Crump?
>
> Crump also mentions George Floyd. He says Floyd was another man arrested for
> participating in black culture. What was the culture in that case? Floyd was
> trying to pass off a counterfeit $20 bill. Is that black culture? He was
>
> Crump also mentions George Floyd. He says Floyd was another man arrested for
> participating in black culture. What was the culture in that case? Floyd was
> overdosing on fentanyl. Is that black culture? I'm not asking these questions
> rhetorically. I would really like to hear Crump answer. I would like to know
> what he considers "black culture" to be in this context. I would not
> rhetorically. I would really like to hear Crump answer. I would like to know
> personally call any of that black culture but I will say that if it was
> black culture, then the culture needs to change. If your culture-- as Crump
> seems to think-- involves disregarding the law, being self-destructive,
> making decisions that are guaranteed to introduce more chaos and violence
> into your life and your community, then your culture is deeply flawed,
> terminally sick, and needs to change.
>
> The law doesn't need to accommodate your culture. Your culture needs to
> accommodate the fact that it exists in a civilized society with laws.
>
> Naturally, Crump only talks about the laws against loose cigarettes and milk
> cartons and baggy pants-- as if anyone is actually being arrested for having
> into your life and your community, then your culture is deeply flawed,
> terminally sick, and needs to change.
>
> The law doesn't need to accommodate your culture. Your culture needs to
> accommodate the fact that it exists in a civilized society with laws.
>
> Naturally, Crump only talks about the laws against loose cigarettes and milk
> baggy pants. He completely ignores the obvious fact that black men are
> arrested every day, in every city in America, for committing actual violent
> crimes. Young black men aren't landing in prison because of their milk
> cartons and ill-fitting pants. But Crump, of course, doesn't want to
> acknowledge that because he is a liar and he's evil and he doesn't care
> arrested every day, in every city in America, for committing actual violent
> crimes. Young black men aren't landing in prison because of their milk
> cartons and ill-fitting pants. But Crump, of course, doesn't want to
> how many people die or how many black men get themselves killed by making
> the worst possible decisions as long as he can personally profit off of it.
>
> I began this by saying that Crump is stupid. And he certainly is. You can't
> listen to him for more than five seconds without arriving at that conclusion.
> But like any other race baiter, he also knows exactly what he's doing. He
> pretends to speak up for "black culture"-- whatever he thinks that is-- while
> I began this by saying that Crump is stupid. And he certainly is. You can't
> listen to him for more than five seconds without arriving at that conclusion.
> But like any other race baiter, he also knows exactly what he's doing. He
0 new messages