In a sane world, this Mississippi councilman would be arrested and charged with inciting a riot. What is achieved by not arresting? We want to signal that threats like this are OK? That the behavior is endorsed by the society? What exactly?
This the exact behavior we see in the French suburbs: The heat rises in France’s banlieues
Mady Traoré is 24. Born in France, to Malian parents, he lives in Clichy-sous-Bois. About 15 miles north of Paris, Clichy is probably the most notorious of the French banlieues – the often rundown estates on the outskirts of the country’s big cities, inhabited largely by second- and third-generation immigrants from North and West African former colonies.
Clichy gained its unenviable reputation in 2005, when the neighborhood saw weeks of rioting and firebombing – les flambées in street patois. Two youngsters had died from electrocution while hiding in a power sub-station. They had fled there after being chased by the police, in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity,.
The deaths triggered a wave of violence. Across France, les banlieues have long been a powder keg of marginalization, poverty and resentment, not least among young men of African origin. Street battles with the police in Clichy unleashed turmoil in quartiers difficile from Paris to Lille, from Toulouse to Marseille. The 2005 riots were the worst in modern French history, resulting in 3,000 arrests, the burning of 10,000 vehicles and serious damage to hundreds of public buildings. A state of emergency was called, which lasted three months.
“Since 2005, surveillance cameras have been installed right across Clichy and are now almost as ubiquitous as “F–k the Police” graffiti. Ominously, the district’s new police station, built after the riots, is surrounded by a 12-foot high solid steel wall, topped with metal grids to repel Molotov cocktails and other types of firebombs.
The problem is the same in both places. Blacks and muslims (and black muslims) who can’t or won’t integrate in the wider society engage in destructive and violent behavior, have extremely high unemployment, and blame the society and government around them. Police and firemen are famously lured into the banlieues when cars or buildings or roadblocks are set alight, then attacked with rocks and bottles and even molotov cocktails. That accomplishes two things: it strikes out at the authorities, and it defines a mini nation state where outsiders are attacked if they dare enter. Where but in a Western country would this be tolerated? Do you think the Chinese would tolerate this? The Koreans? The Pakis? Egyptians? Peruvians? The problem here isn’t too much enforcement of the law, it’s too little.
24 thoughts on ““Let’s throw rocks, bricks and bottles at the police””
It’s coming here as Obama imports the same population. So far, the feds seem to be concealing where these people will be settled but I have read it is in red states. They had better be careful because those states are also the ones with armed Americans in majority.
The guy said a dumb thing. The next rock, brick or bottle thrown at a police car will result in the book being thrown at him. Until then, the people of Jackson seem to be ignoring him and behaving themselves. Taking action against him at this point would be more likely to start a riot than his inane comment.
On the other hand, there is open rebellion in Oregon. Why not cite this situation of lawlessness in which threats of violence have been made against authorities who might try to repossess the building?
I’m with Mrs. Davis. He either shot his mouth off or has a political motive. Either way it’s probably best to ignore him unless someone takes his advice.
And do you honestly think that if people follow his advice he’ll then be arrested? I don’t. He’ll walk away. This is how people like Al Sharpton have made a career, stirring up unrest, washing their hands of the resulting mayhem, then taking payoffs to stir up more trouble or refrain from doing it. We could put an end to the whole cycle if we found the will to do so.
Al Sharpton is in NYC. This guy is in Mississippi. Yeah, I honestly think he’s in the slammer if there’s another incident in the next week or two.
The Jacobin method has been used many times since them by Communists around the world.
Yes of course they’re raising Hell and like in France the local authority is the enemy – this is to increase national power at the center by causing chaos in the peripheries.
It’s actually war by the Executive National Central Govt against the local and provincial authorities – often in History this was King vs Nobles.
The Local Police are an obstacle to Centralized Tyranny.
Politics is POWER and that’s all.
Above link is on exactly same in 1789 in France.
We’ll see this repeated in similar communities all over. Another long year to go, and a lot more mayhem, murder and damage to go. The tyrant’s shock troops have been organized for years in anticipation of a time like this. I’m sure he’s confident that the local feds have got his back. We know D.C. does.
I’m a lot more concerned about this.
If they really wanted to have an impact, Mrs. Davis, they would track down those calls and tweets and arrest the organizers. Then imprison them. These things are self feeding. Once a small amount of chaos is loosed and goes unpunished, larger chaos follows. This is how society breaks down. I’m not talking about enforcing j-walking laws, I’m talking about enforcing laws against assaults and riots. You let it go, it’s de facto allowed.
The Oregon rebellion is serious. The facts are outrageous. The two ranchers were sentenced to three years in prison for “terrorism” when they burned off some brush that was a fire hazard. We have already had disastrous fires in Arizona, which killed a bunch of firefighters, because the Forest Service will not allow thinning of trees. The fuel builds up and you have a disaster.
These ranchers burned off brush on land adjacent to theirs, as I understand it. They served three years and now a federal judge wants to send them back for two more years.
Back when Reagan was president, we had The Sagebrush Rebellion over Democrat land use policies. Now, Obama and the EPA have revived these and doubled down on outrages. I just hope there isn’t a Tim McVeigh watching this.
Mike, you might be interested in this.
Michael, I agree with you completely, if there were organizers (there will be next time). I suspect authorities could use cctv also to publish pictures of those caught in flagrante delicto. But it is far different from a blowhard politician emptying his pie hole to no effect.
I think what’s on display in some of the comments is a form of acceptance of certain behavior from one side of the political spectrum because it’s so common and old hat, while there is alarm at very similar speech and behavior from the other side because it’s unusual, so therefore it must be more meaningful and dangerous.
The use of street protests, building occupations, and inflammatory language is so common from the progressive/revolutionary/racialist left that that a great many people just shrug, thinking that that’s just the way they are, so what’s the big deal?
But if these types of actions or language come from the conservative side, they are immediately condemned, called out as being dangerous, or terrorists, labels that are rarely used when the actors are from the left, or even when obvious terrorist acts are committed by Islamic fanatics, who have somehow become a protected minority in the PC multi-culti fantasy land that progressives inhabit in their own dreams.
In fact, this strange double standard of acceptance vs horrified outrage has even become an accepted default reaction even among some otherwise conservative people, who have assimilated various cultural values and tropes of the progressives without even realizing where they come from, or why the progs push them so vigorously.
There is a deepening anger building among the normally law-abiding and non-violent parts of middle class society that progs and their various subsidiary groups count on to be fairly passive, politically disinterested, and generally productive, so that taxing them can pay for the various prog revenue schemes that employ, enrich, and buy the votes of themselves and their clients.
One of the next times some radical or racial group starts rioting, burning buildings, looting stores, and generally making life miserable and dangerous for the community at large, this anger is going to boil over, and people are going to get seriously hurt.
When that happens, watch the frenzied condemnations of those acting to protect their homes, families, or businesses, all the while the destruction and violence of the prog client group is excused and justified.
As an example, simply study the media and elite’s reaction to any Islamic terror incident, when they immediately declare that the greatest danger is some mythical form of backlash that never seems to occur, rather than the continuing terrorist actions that repeat and repeat, thriving in this atmosphere of willing blindness and ideological denial.
This comment might stir some of the usual trolls to emerge from their parents’ basement, or their normal stupor, and make some snarky response. Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I don’t bother with people who have a delusional worldview, as any prog disciple does by definition, nor do they have any credibility which requires any form of response as if they were generally interested in an actual discussion.
If I may offer some insight, not complete by any means, but from my point of view of these events. I have been posting them around the net, because things are getting interesting in the Chinese sense.
1) BLM was doing an open burn that they do to stop certain invasive weeds, which they do regularly.
2) Ranchers there who lease BLM land as a normal practice burn their leased land at the same time up to the border of their lease, so they can get all the weeds so they don’t re-grow as easily.
3) This time, for reasons based on the desire to seize the ranch, the BLM charged the Hammond family with arson and now with terrorism.
4) The father and son have already done time, and after they were released the judge decided to tack on more time. Think about that. They have already served and discharged their sentence, and after release the government decided to add to their sentence retroactively. Even in Britain they could not get away with that.
5) The Federales have also added in a really strange charge of deer poaching based on the testimony of a mentally retarded person who may not have even been there.
This is the kind of thing, like at Bundy Ranch, where Oathkeepers and other Constitutional Militias might intervene. Being British, y’all may not understand the concept of a Militia as understood over here. It would take too long here, but if you want I will explain it later.
I am a member of a Prep group here in Colorado, and we have a strong contingent of Oathkeepers in our group, including some who normally do respond to situations such as this. That includes the miners up in Oregon, and the Bundy Ranch. Yesterday morning they briefed us at the meeting [to be honest, we had not heard of the Hammond case] as to what had happened till then [this is before the building was seized] and why they were not there.
The Hammond family was offered support by Oathkeepers and declined. They intend to fight this through the courts, which is their right and choice. Stewart Rhodes, who heads Oathkeepers passed the word for Oathkeepers to stand down in this matter, as have most Constitutional Militias.
After Bundy Ranch, I had the honor of meeting and having lunch with one of the 3% leaders there. He described a number of incidents, one of which involved supposed “militia” people who were deliberately trying to provoke violent confrontation with the Federales and had to be sat on a few times. Their actions seemed to be coordinated with things the Federales were doing. According to the Oathkeepers at our meeting, many of the same people have turned up at Hammond Ranch. They claim past military and current militia affiliation that is . . . questionable. Not all, but some of those there.
Note please that I support the Hammonds, and have the deepest respect for the Bundy family.
I, personally, think the provocateurs noted above [who have since been identified, and are known to not be legitimate militia] are actively working for DHS. If anything happens, it is probably a false flag event by the regime. I suspect strongly that their immediate goal is to create incidents and an atmosphere supporting the unconstitutional decrees against the Second Amendment that Buraq Hussein says he is going to issue next week.
If anything happens, investigate before drawing conclusions.
UPDATE: The Hammond Family has just announced that the “militia” holding the BLM building are NOT affiliated with them. That, along with reports that they are moving children into the building makes me believe even more strongly that this is a Federal false flag. I think the Feds want another Waco, dead kids and all.
The French government officially says that there are not areas that are not under French government control. Obviously, they are lying. It is discontiguous, but there is functionally an Islamic state scattered through France. The French government publishes an Atlas listing the locations of the Zones Urbain Sensibiles, or Sensitive Urban Zones.
Mind you, such exists in Britain too. I saw an interesting figure today. Female Genital Mutilation, an Islamic practice, is barred by British law. Yet apparently about 60 cases a month are noted officially by the NHS, and no one is ever charged nor are the children taken in care.
Because Muslims in Britain are effectively above the law [q.v. Rotherham too]
Either of the “Waco’s”. I’m reminded of the most recent, where the feds seemingly gaslighted the local police into the Twin Peaks horror show. Media proxies are activated, daytime television maven Montel screaming about “hillbillies”. All this on the heels of another executive order announcement.
There is a very complete write-up about the Hammond ranch matter at Conservative Treehouse by blogger “Sundance”. As I read it, the short version is that the Feds/BLM wanted their ranch lands to expand the wildlife sanctuary, the Hammonds didn’t want to sell … and so they have been publicly made an example of, pour encourager les autres.
Legislators should legislate and it’s buffoonish to not exercise legitimate power when you have it and resort to illegitimate calls to violence when the problem can be solved with a few raised hands and a new ordinance.
My understanding of the councilman is that he was complaining of out of district police running through Jackson and endangering locals. Is this something that is legal in Mississippi? If it is not, the solution is simple, the pursuing officers operating outside their jurisdiction need to be told to cut it out and that if they do not, that they will be arrested. If it is legal, then the remedy is to amend the law. Assaulting officers is never the answer but if there is a real problem of officers from outside the county illegally crossing over and endangering innocents with excessive speed chases running through Jackson, MS, there’s a real problem at the bottom of all that stupidity that needs addressing. Putting an officer in a cell on a 23 hour hold and seizing their patrol car under asset forfeiture would solve the problem quite effectively. My guess is that it wouldn’t even need to happen once. The regional police would just slow down in Jackson if they were engaged in a fresh pursuit because their own chiefs would make it clear that if they get their cars seized for an illegal chase, they were not long for the force.
Speaking as a retired Peace Officer, I’d like to comment on this.
Cops may be hired by localities, but they derive their powers from the state and state statute.
In my state, there are 3 classes of Peace Officer, and their powers are defined thusly:
Class I – elected and appointed officials with the power of arrest statewide for any crime, and the power of hot pursuit across jurisdictional boundaries [that does involve notifying the jurisdiction entered].
Class IIa – local police, Sheriffs’ deputies, town marshals, etc. with the power of arrest statewide for any crime, and the power of hot pursuit across jurisdictional boundaries.
Class IIb – State law enforcement with the power of arrest statewide for any crime, and the power of hot pursuit across jurisdictional boundaries.
Class III – State law enforcement with limited arrest powers within their jurisdiction and no power of hot pursuit [ag inspectors, weights & measures, health department, etc].
The right to pursue a criminal is intrinsic to law enforcement. Otherwise, all they have to do is cross a county or city line and they will escape. We had the jurisdictional boundary problem until about the 1950’s and it did not work.
Hot pursuit involves the notification of jurisdictions crossed, and coordination with them for the apprehension if possible; but the jurisdiction being crossed may not have officers in position to intervene. So the pursuing officer needs to maintain contact instead of stopping at the city line. It is not running willy-nilly down residential streets.
From what I understand, and I admit that I may not have all the data, the case he is upset about involved a hot pursuit which he claims was over misdemeanor shoplifting. I understand that it started over that, but in the process the suspect is alleged to have committed aggravated assault on another party; which is a serious felony.
If there are problems with pursuits, it should be possible to document either injuries to the public or near escapes from such. And maybe change tactical procedures based on actual data. I have seen or heard nothing to indicate such risk, but as I said I may not have all the data.
I suspect, from having encountered this mindset before, that the councilman is more concerned that his constituents are being arrested for the crimes they are charged with. And that his concern is based on melanin content.
Subotai Bahadur – I’m most familiar with New York, just outside of NYC, where I grew up. Police officers would not cross jurisdiction boundaries there for a speeder or other minor infraction. I suspect that both of our experiences are different from whatever the law is down in Mississippi. The jurisdictional boundary issue is not just a problem for law enforcement. It ensures that misbehaving police are limiting their misbehavior in the area where voters can vote out the politicians who tolerate it.
I once slid out of control on a slick road surface and had a slow speed accident, rear ending another motorist with minor damage to his bumper. It was entirely my fault and I was perfectly willing to own up to the accident. The guy I hit was black. The officer, unsolicited, offered to reverse the finding of fault if I would play along. I was appalled and played dumb, paid my ticket, and took my lumps on my insurance premiums. I never quite trusted the police in that area after that incident and it dented my general willingness to give the officer’s account the benefit of the doubt.
Now it’s almost a certainty that the councilman is an idiot. It’s possible that you’re right that he’s racist as well. I don’t know the man but there’s nothing inconsistent with the news stories. I notice that his party affiliation isn’t mentioned so, probably a Democrat.
In a case like this, I find that it’s useful to lay out a way to solve the claimed problem that would actually work if the problem were real. For instance, if Ferguson was really a case of a nest of racist police backed up by a corrupt administration what would the solution be? It turns out that the law allows for the peaceful resolution of such situations by simple petition and initiative. An irredeemably corrupt police force, mayor, and council can simply be dissolved under Missouri law. But that’s not what the protesters did. They went out burning and looting instead.
When you spend ten minutes and come up with a perfectly peaceful and effective way to solve a problem, you’ve destroyed any narrative of an oppressed minority whose only choice left is to lash out with the violence really being the fault of the oppressive authorities. Citizens petitioning to get their municipality dissolved due to irredeemable racism are not a good opportunity for a shakedown. Local police detaining and seizing patrol cars from a neighboring force that is out of control is a very different situation from bottles and rocks being thrown at police. In all the commentary I’ve read on the story, nobody on either side seems to have made much note that the man is a councilman and could introduce legislation to fix the problem if he desired. Nobody asked what new rules the man was going to introduce to fix the problem. That is bizarre to me.
The Councilman just had another press conference. His primary concern now is the fact that the localities and police surrounding Jackson [primarily Black] are White, and the presence of White officers on the streets of Jackson are a racial threat to his constituents. And he is calling for the Department of Justice to come in and investigate the violation of their civil rights because they are White and can legally pursue Black criminals into Jackson.
I’m gonna count my initial suspicions as correct.
And I will cynically guess that the name of the suspect pursued into Jackson was “Dindu Nuffin“.
Forgot to comment about the ability to look for a solution to problems.
If you look at the most violent cities in the country, and those with the grossest racial inequality, you find that they are almost exclusively Democrat run at all levels. And in cities with a high Black population, frequently Black Democrat run. And that goes back for decades. They have the city government, the schools, the welfare system, the police, and the DA. If Democrat policies worked to give people a better life, maybe we should see that by now. Instead, things get worse. And so they resort to race hatred and tribalism.
Look at the 10 largest cities in the country. Almost all Democrat run. Almost all have strict gun control laws. If you take only the Black on Black firearms crimes in those cities out of the statistics, as a nation we are as safe and non-violent as pre-Muslim invasion Europe.
When you find yourself in a hole, the first step is to stop digging.
Subotai Bahadur – If you look globally at the intentional homicide rates, two major hotspots jump out at you, Africa and Latin America. It’s highly unlikely that blacks share the higher crime rates of their african co-ethnics and latinos have zero relationship in their crime rates but that is what your theory seems to be. Your theory doesn’t even hang together internally, nor does it match the crime statistics. Latino homicide rates are disproportionately high as well. Subtracting out black homicides would bring us closer in line to Europe but it would not make us “as safe and non-violent as pre-Muslim invasion Europe”. There might be some truth to what you say but you’re currently not giving your best advocacy case for your theory.
“Latino homicide rates are disproportionately high as well.”
Don’t forget that Brazil’s population is majority black.
My theory is less ethnic than cultural. Particularly inner city Black culture, which is vastly different from rural Black culture or suburban Black culture. The latter two are closer to the mainstream American culture and are more likely [although not perfectly so because our mainstream culture shares these problems too] to have something approximating an intact family, school attendance, and a chance at employment.
Our government has created a separate tribal culture based on EBT cards. It is dysfunctional in ways we do not have room to go into here [and I suspect that with they exception of our trolls is something already known and understood].
Comments are closed.