Thanks to the Black Lives Matter group in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, and the home of freedom, we have a glimpse into the future of the mobocracy that is progressive socialist democrat politics…
The facts are simple, undisputed, and corroborated by eyewitness testimony: the police, responding to a call of a “male assaulting an elderly female,” confronted a man, later identified as 27-year-old Walter Wallace, aggressively brandishing a knife, and despite repeated police commands to drop the knife while the officers were backing up, advanced on officers who shot him; In an effort to save Wallace’s life, the officers did not wait for an ambulance, but put the assailant in a police car and rushed him to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.
Here come the lawyers, the spin, and the inevitable lawsuit, which will most likely result in a multi-million dollar pay-off because it is not the progressive politician’s money, and they are pandering to a segment of their constituency.
"Meanwhile, Mr. Wallace's family lawyer said that they had called for an ambulance - not police - to help deal with Walter Wallace's mental issues. Instead, two police officers arrived, lawyer Shaka Johnson was quoted as saying by the Inquirer. Mr. Wallace's pregnant wife told them her husband had bipolar disorder and was in crisis. "<Source>
As if mental illness somehow mitigates the clear and present threat to the officer’s lives. Or even the lives of any medical first-responders.
How did the Biden/Harris team respond to the shooting in this battleground state?
"Our hearts are broken for the family of Walter Wallace Jr., and for all those suffering the emotional weight of learning about another Black life in America lost. We cannot accept that in this country a mental health crisis ends in death," Biden and Harris said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. "It makes the shock and grief and violence of yesterday’s shooting that much more painful, especially for a community that has already endured so much trauma. Walter Wallace’s life, like too many others’, was a Black life that mattered."
Yes, it is tragic when any life is lost, but it is insanity to place our law enforcement officers at risk when they are risking their lives to keep individuals and communities safe. Especially from those with long histories of mental problems and/or criminal activity.
As if an assailant advancing on armed police officers should not be regarded as a deadly existential threat to the officer’s lives. If an officer retreats, there is the danger of slipping and falling, accidentally discharging a wild-shot, losing their weapon, or being killed while in a compromised position. Running away may place innocent bystanders in harm’s way. I was taught to “shoot to stop” any knife-wielding individual that came within 21-feet of my position. For those wanting to read the seminal thesis, How CLOSE is TOO CLOSE, it can be found at the Police Policies Study Council.
I could also point out that criminals, crazies, and terrorists may not be thinking clearly, under the influence, or simply in a rage with murderous intent.
How did the Black Lives Matter crowd respond…
Arson. Looting. Public and Private Property Destruction.
"Philadelphia police have said hundreds of looters are ransacking businesses in the city in a second night of unrest after police fatally shot a black man. Police reinforcements as well as the National Guard have been deployed. Officials say 30 officers were hurt in the first night of clashes. Images from the scene showed a police vehicle set on fire. A number of businesses and shops were looted. Most of the injured police officers were struck by objects such as bricks and other projectiles, authorities said. One officer was in hospital with a broken leg and other injuries after being struck by a pickup truck." <Source>
When you think that progressive policing and public protection policies cannot get much worse, look to Seattle, Washington…
The radical Seattle City Council is considering amending the law to permit most misdemeanors to be dismissed if they involve mental illness, addiction, or poverty. Under this scenario, almost all petty crimes could be dismissed in a permissive and lawless environment.
According to Change/WA, here is how it might play out…
|
On Wednesday, October 21, Councilmember Lisa Herbold, chairperson of the Seattle City Council’s Public Safety Committee, introduced far-reaching legislation to excuse and dismiss almost all misdemeanor crimes committed in Seattle by persons with symptoms of addiction or mental disorder. Any perpetrator with a credible claim of behavioral health symptoms – anything from drug use to depression – would effectively have blanket immunity from prosecution for misdemeanor assault, theft, harassment, trespass, stalking, car prowl, and 100 other Seattle criminal laws.
Councilmember Herbold’s proposal would create a legal loophole that would open the floodgates to crime in Seattle, effectively nullifying the city’s ability to protect persons and property from most misdemeanor crimes.
Here’s what the proposed defenses would look like in practice:
- Substance use disorder – Any (non-DUI/DV) misdemeanor case must be dismissed if the defendant can show “symptoms of” a substance use disorder. The defendant must only show that they use substances “despite significant substance-related problems.” Given that the defendant is already facing criminal charges, a defendant would only need to claim drug or alcohol addiction to satisfy his or her burden on a preponderance of the evidence standard. There are few practical ways for a prosecutor to disprove someone’s claim that they are experiencing symptoms of a substance use disorder to drugs or alcohol.
- Mental disorder – Any (non-DUI/DV) misdemeanor case must be dismissed if the defendant can show “symptoms of” “any organic, mental, or emotional impairment which has substantial adverse effects on a person’s cognitive or volitional functions.” According to the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, major types of mental disorders include: anxiety, ADHD, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, among others. Again, there is no practical way for a prosecutor to disprove a defendant’s claim that they are experiencing symptoms of a mental disorder. (Note: the proposed mental disorder defense has little relationship to the insanity defense which requires very specific psychiatric analysis of the defendant’s mental state. Very few individuals who have mental disorders meet the very high ‘insanity’ defense threshold).
- Poverty – Any (non-DUI/DV) misdemeanor case must be dismissed if the defendant can show they “participated in the offense with the intent of meeting an immediate basic need related to an adequate standard of living for the actor and/or other family,” with basic need defined as including but not being limited to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and sanitation. This defense presents a modestly higher standard than the first two defenses because here the defendant must show some nexus between the alleged crime and a basic need.
|
Already major cities governed by progressive socialist democrats, many by people of color, have significant crime issues. And now, they want to magnify and extend these problems into suburbia by altering or eliminating restrictive single-family zoning and mandating low-income housing exist in well-kept relatively crime-free neighborhoods. Also to pool suburban taxes into a greater-metroplex entity.
It occurred to me that this may be part of the salami bargaining technique where the progressives ask for something outrageous and then settle for something they really want, but still beyond normal and customary boundaries. Eating slice-by-slice until the whole salami is gone.
Bottom line…
I do not know how much more Americans can take before it implodes into irreparable dysfunction.
We are so screwed.
--steve