Civil Rights Law Enforcement

Conversations After Dallas


David Brown, the Dallas police chief—with his painful past of three family members killed by violence, including a son—is the beating heart at the center of the public discussion. At least for the moment. And he’s wearing that mantle well, and humanely, even if with increasing fatigue.

On Monday, Brown confirmed that he and his family getting death threats following Thursday’s shooting.

He also said in a Monday press conference that the public expects too much of law enforcement. “We want to be superman and superwomen and we’re not. We don’t like to ask for help…. But that’s the number one thing we need…”

Washington Post reporters Brady Dennis, Mark Berman and Elahe Izadi have more on the story.

Here’s a clip:

DALLAS — The police chief here said Monday he feels that law enforcement officers across the country are being asked to take on too much, comments that came as his department was still investigating the mass shooting of Dallas police officers last week and protesters in other cities continued demonstrations against how officers use force.

Even as the Dallas police worked to sift through massive amounts of evidence from the shooting rampage that killed five officers — an effort that entails watching hundreds of hours of videos and conducting scores of interviews — David Brown, the Dallas police chief, said he believes officers in his city and nationwide are under too much strain.

“We’re asking cops to do too much in this country,” Brown said at a briefing Monday. “We are. Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding, let the cops handle it. Here in Dallas we got a loose dog problem; let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, let’s give it to the cops. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.”

During his remarks Monday, Brown also offered a hint of the toll that overseeing the response to such a shooting was taking on him. Brown, who has lived through traumas including his son’s death following the young man’s fatal shooting of an officer, said he was “running on fumes.” The chief also said he and his family “received death threats almost immediately after the shooting.”

“We’re all on edge,” Brown said of police in Dallas. “And we’re being very careful.”

Brown said Monday that in addition to the five officers who were killed, nine others were injured due to the gunfire — two more than police had said before. A total of 13 officers used force against the gunman, Brown said, with 11 of them firing their guns and two of them using the explosive that killed the attacker.


KPCC’s Larry Mantle decided not to have a guest on for his last segment on Monday so he could ask listeners to call in and talk about the conversations they’d been having about the complex and painful events of the past week.

It’s an interesting cross section of experiences and opinions. You can listen here.


Much has been written about the successful reform that Dallas Police Chief David Brown had been instituting in the last six years, but we like this version by the Washington Post’s Radley Balko. (We usually like Radley Balko.) Here’s a clip:

As I pointed out in today’s morning links, one particularly unfortunate aspect of the murder of five Dallas police officers Thursday night is that the city’s police department is a national model for community policing. Chief David Brown, who took office in 2010, has implemented a host of policies to improve the department’s relationship with the people it serves, often sticking out his own neck and reputation in the process. At risk of stating the obvious, no sane person would argue that these murders would have been okay if they had occurred in a city with a less community-oriented police department. Nor am I suggesting that the killer or killers represent any legitimate faction of the police reform or racial justice movements. But because Dallas is grieving right now, and the rest of us with it, it’s worth pointing out that in its police department, the city has much for which to be proud. Here are some of the areas where Brown and his administration have made changes:

Use of force

After a series of officer-involved shootings in late 2013, Brown overhauled the department’s lethal-force policies, including a requirement that officers undergo training every two months instead of every two years. The new policies won him a lot of public criticism from police groups and police advocates. He was even criticized by the Dallas Morning News, which accused him of being “reactive” and “moving too quickly.” Brown significantly expanded the data the department gathers on shootings by police, and has set up a team to regularly review that data to identify trends and potential problems. The Dallas PD’s lethal-force policy includes a statement that “protection of human life” is the agency’s primary goal, emphasizes that deadly force should be used with “great restraint,” only “as a last resort,” and requires officers to use all reasonable alternatives before resorting to lethal means. After an incident in which Dallas officers shot and killed a schizophrenic man, the department teamed with the National Alliance on Mental Illness to provide better training for intervening when someone is having a mental health crisis. Moreover, all of the data on the city’s officer-involved shootings is not only available to the public, there’s also a prominent link to the data on the department’s homepage. Brown also seems to understand the important distinction between the cop as warrior and the cop as guardian. And his top aides also seem to understand that when it comes to the harms caused by police militarization, imagery is as important as the gear and how it’s used.

Has it worked? It would appear so. After hitting a high in 2012, officer-involved shootings in the city dropped in each ensuing year. I don’t completely agree with everything Brown has done. In 2013, for example, Brown quietly introduced a policy that allows police officers to wait 72 hours before answering questions about a shooting. I find the research suggesting that a wait time improves an officer’s memory to be lacking. And I’ve seen too many incidents of cops corroborating on a narrative to believe that isn’t how such a wait time would primarily be utilized. But that’s one issue. On the whole, Brown’s record demonstrates that he takes officer-involved shootings very seriously and is implementing policies designed to reduce them — and at times has taken quite a bit of heat for it.


Brown has fired more than 70 Dallas cops since taking office. But he doesn’t just fire bad cops, he also announces the firings — and the reasons for them — on social media…..


Dr. Brian H. Williams, trauma surgeon at Parkland Memorial Hospital, who was one of the primary doctors who treated the 12 officers shot by Micah Johnson in Dallas talked on Monday to press about his anguish at being unable to save some of the officers he treated, and the complex emotions he has experienced as a black man about such shootings as those seen recently in Baton Rouge and St. Paul.


The Atlantic’s Juleyka Lantigua-Williams interviews retired police chief Donald Grady II who, in his 36 years on the force, served as chief in Santa Fe, New Mexico, among other cities, and trained police forces abroad in managing racial and ethnic strife among the ranks and with civilians.

Here’s a snippet of what Grady talked about:

….rather than talk about things reasonably, logically, we have the police ratcheting up the rhetoric and we’ve got members of the community ratcheting up the rhetoric and that doesn’t resolve any issues at all. It bothers me any time we lose a citizen or we lose a police officer. We have to recognize that police officers are citizens too…”


The LA Times’ Molly Hennessy Fisk has a portrait of one of the two civilian victims of the devastating mass shooting in Dallas. Shetamia Taylor and her sons told about their experiences at a press conference on Sunday, July 10, describing to reporters what happened the night when a gunman killed five police officers and wounded ten others including Taylor.

Here’s a clip:

When the shooting started at the Black Lives Matter protest here last week, Shetamia Taylor shouted at her four sons to run.

“They started running up the block and I was running behind them and I felt the bullet,” she said Sunday.

Taylor, 38, had been shot from behind, in her right calf. Still standing, she looked to a police officer ahead of her, a heavyset, balding white man.

Then he was shot, too.

“I saw him go down. When he got hit, he slumped over and he said ‘He has a gun, run!’ ” she said, recounting the incident from her wheelchair at Baylor Medical Center. She began to sob, covering her face.

It would take hours for Taylor to learn the fate of her sons – ages 12, 14, 15 and 18 – and of the dozen officers shot, five of them fatally, by 25-year-old Micah Xavier Johnson.


She tried to raise her sons right, instructing them to treat police with respect, but also to call home if they were ever stopped. Taylor admired police but was increasingly disturbed by the growing tally of police shootings involving black men, and feared for her boys. It had been her idea to go to the protest, the family’s first, which she saw announced on Facebook.

After she was shot, Taylor managed to grab her 15-year-old son, Andrew Humphrey, and push him between a car and the curb, shielding him with her body.

“I was just laying on top of him,” she said. “If it was going to happen to one of my sons, it was going to happen to me first.”

She watched police stream up the block toward them — and the shooting. One of them shouted, “Is anybody hit?’”

Andrew yelled no, unaware that his mother was injured.

Taylor didn’t want to alarm him, and called out quietly to one of the officers, “Yes, sir, I’m hit in my leg!”

Police rushed over, most of them white officers, and jumped on top of Taylor and her son. “There was another one at our feet and another one over our head and several of them lying against a wall. And they just stayed there with us,” she said. “I had never seen anything like that before, the way they came around us and guarded us like that.”

Andrew was crying for police to move them, but they said it wasn’t safe.

As they lay on the concrete, pinned down by gunfire, Taylor saw another police officer get struck. She still doesn’t know if the two officers who were shot in front of her lived through the night.

“It was hundreds of rounds,” she said, “shots all around us.”


The whole thing began when rapper the Game and his oldest son, Harlan, were talking about what made a good cop in their estimation. After the conversation, Harlem began poking around on the web looking for unsung officers who he felt were engaged in the kind of excellent everyday policing they’d been talking about. Of the men and women in blue he found, he was particularly impressed with Little Rock police officer Tommy Norman, a white cop serving a predominantly black community in the Arkansas city.

On his web page, Norman wrote the that the following was his Mission:

“If you can just take two minutes out of the day to go out and make a difference, whether checking on your neighbor if they’re elderly, cutting someone’s grass, or hold the door for someone. It’s really just act of kindness and I think acts of kindness coming from a police officer means that much more to people because that’s not something you’re used to seeing.”

Now, the Game and Harlem are raising $50,000 for Norman through a GoFundMe campaign.

According to Rolling Stone’s Daniel Kreps whose story . called attention to Game and Harlem’s efforts in officer Norman’s behalf, the “money raised by the GoFundMe will help Norman better contribute to the community he polices, including ‘purchasing and delivering items such as snacks, drinks, and toys for him to keep his trunk stocked for the kids.'”

The Game launched the fundraising effort after he and Snoop Dog and others led a peaceful march to the LAPD headquarters on Friday, and then joined Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and Mayor Eric Garcetti for a press conference.


  • And Obama said he is our (police) best “hope!” What a mess! As Sal Alinsky said “The issue is never the issue the issue is always the agenda.”

  • So he is admitting that cops are being required to do too much, which I have to assume is true. That being said, the risk of doing too much and being overwhelmed is fatigue, poor decision making, poor judgement, resentment and a whole host of behaviors that manifest in any of us when we are overwhelmed that might just contribute to violent and/or unjust actions from potentially “burnt out” and fatigued officers.

  • I’m rooting for the Dallas cops to turn their back on Obama during the funeral service. Obama has more than earned it. It was awsome when the New York cops did it, it would be even more epic now.

  • Sadly, our jobs has gotten worse since the advent of liberalism. No dad around-give it to the cops. One parent or both in jail or prison-give it to the cops. Children not in school, committing crimes-give it to the cops. Children raising themselves-give it to the cops. Poor economic policies-no work-give it to the cops. Failing schools-give it to the cops. Blacks murdering Blacks-give it to the cops. Criminals hiding as homeless-give it to the cops. Minorities unable or unwilling to take responsibility-give it to the cops. No Hope or Change-give it to the cops.

  • In my field when we are overwhelmed and burnt out we are either asked or told to leave the field for fear that we will harm others. In any case if our actions harm others, the board assures that we are held accountable Being a cop is a privilege not a Right and if the challenges cannot be handled by the individual, they are not held hostage by their chosen career choice.

  • @Questions: Just watched the Dallas Memorial. Not in my lifetime has there been a more effective political demagogue than President Obama. You mentioned Alinsky. Obama’s speech was a classic demonstration of the Rules for Radicals (principles which are a Google-click away). The executive branch of the federal government is trying to capture and consolidate local agencies. The emerging pressure for a single, uniform federal top-down standard for police departments across fifty states not only shreds the genius and design of the concept of ‘federalism’ (localism, 10th Amendment), it makes Brexit-like policy options of states less available. With taxpayer money flowing through the federal government at record levels, our local police agencies will be facing an increasingly intrusive Leviathan. Obama tried to federalize the public schools (e.g., see Race to the Top legislation). The Ramsey Report of 2015 is a recipe for more of the same. Alternatively, the hope is to starve the beast (the federal government) of money and somehow restore constitutional principles, that is, if all the *ucking legal institutions haven’t all been broken by 2017.

  • @ 5. Dr Ronda. The whiners don’t get it.
    Look at opinionated and childish statement of #3.Nicobar.
    @ Questions….he has no answers, but a complaint for every topic.
    This could not be a true forum without the foolish and silly comments.
    They too, are part of the mix up that makes up America.

  • The blood of those 5 officers is all over Obama’s hands. THE ONLY reason he showed up to that memorial wall because of the upcoming election. He knows people are fed up with BLMatter, a separatist movement that’s rebuilding every was Dr. King tore down. A movement their failed policies helped create. He needed to save some face for the democrats, plain and simple.

  • I wish there was some focus on how to decrease the amount of stress on officers and how to equip them with all necessary training equipment and skills needed to do their job. Also, eliminating aspects of their job that are better severed by other agencies. No matter how we cut it and no matter who is doing the killing of officers, it is a problem. Even today with the two bailiff’s killed (both retired deputies) and the one deputy wounded in the Michigan court house we are blaming the current administration?

  • Kudos to Dallas Police Chief David Brown in spite of his personal tragedies who leads Dallas Police Department with integrity, perspective and common sense without the racial rhetoric and division. He sees, knows and understands his officers and the community in which they serve. Other Police Chiefs in America should take note.

  • drronda, IMHO, things have changed in how officers do their jobs. But the stress has always been there – I worked the streets through the anti-war years when tensions were running pretty high as well. Quite frankly, back “in the day”, we were much more less likely to take crap off individuals than these much more professionals are today. As a result the public tended to do what they were told when we got serious. Today it is a different ball game. The much-more professional cops of today have to take a lot of crap that we simply did not. If they got in our face, they were up against the wall or across the hood and, like it or not, it was a rule of thumb that if they ran from us, they got thumped. It was understood on both sides. Same with pursuits. At the end of a pursuit, same thing. Don’t like hearing that? Well, it kept pursuits to a minimum and probably saved a lot of lives at the cost of a few bruises. Nothing serious, just a few whacks – certainly not a Rodney King – and the perps knew that was the cost of trying to get away. It was the way of the streets. Today there are no real consequence because the courts just assume that trying to “get away” is part of the crime and it gets included in the overall sentence.

    But that all has changed and, as a consequence, individuals have been emboldened to ignore what officers are telling them. The latest controversial shootings are fine examples of that. Failure to comply with what the officers were telling the suspects to do have cost these guys their lives over and over. If Michael Brown had just got out of the middle of the street when told to by Officer Darrin Wilson in Ferguson Mo, he would probably still be robbing liquor stores today. It is NOT anything the officers are doing that has changed – other than be more patient when dealing with the public – it is the public’s unwillingness to accept what they are being told. Until that is understood, these shootings are going to continue to happen.

  • There is NO excuse for the Minnesota shooting. Total compliance by the victim and he was still murdered. If not for Facebook, no one outside of the officers involved and the girlfriend w/child would have known. Thank God for cameras, video and media.

    Yes, unfortunately the bloodshed will continue. No doubt if there were no witnesses, it would have been the “cops word” only, seeing that the deceased can’t talk. Wake up America!

  • @Not Buying It, you’ve got every right to speak out of your depth and commit more fallacies than a village jester or hardcore BLM member. However, in this country, the investigation – a lawful, objective, scientific, reasoned investigation – will determine whether or not there exists a preponderance of evidence whereby policy was violated. What I probably regret most in your comment is an American education system that graduates people who seem to violate principles of logic and reason with impunity. So I’m not buying your verbal lynching of the Minnesota officer and your lurch to conclusions before due process and a fair, thorough investigation has been conducted. The media can bugger off until that investigation has been done properly and ethically. This is still America where the rule of law and the bar of justice is supposed to be blind (if not now in reality, at least in the ideal). If after a fair, thorough investigation the Minnesota officer is found culpable for administrative and/or criminal sanctions, then he will be afforded the opportunity to offer substantive and procedural challenges. And so forth. It may be the case that a criminal complaint will at some point in the future be sustained. But let’s not allow the fascistic impulse of the feckless, intellectually lazy bandwagon crowd preempt a tried and true artifact of civilization. For now, put away your pitchfork. And with all due respect, you might wish to skim Edward Gibbon’s six-volume The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to see where your project just may take us.

  • What happened to training. I have a permit and am carrying a gun.
    I am kind of confused that the officer was talking to the passenger in a equipment violation of the car, not the driver. I am sure that will be explained in time.
    What was the urgency in this stop. A guy tells you he has a gun and you don’t request back up and wait……Perhaps have him as they do around here put his hands on the dash board and frickin wait.
    Did he not see the kid in the back seat or perhaps suffering from tunnel vision. By the grace of God and his shooting know one else was hit.
    In time we will get all the questions answered. I think a lot of these shootings would not have happened if the officers had slowed down and got all the back up needed to safely deal with the people. Smother them in Blue, Tan, or Green.
    Take better control of the situation instead off trying to handle by your self and perhaps you not getting home safely.

  • @ Brizz. Your philosophical and textbook verbage of judicial process sounds ideal in a perfect world, however this is not a perfect world or a perfect America. Your interpretation only applies to a select few. My thoughts are that the police officer in Minnesota made a tragic and fatal mistake which resulted in the homicide (he was killed by the hands of another) of the victim. Go figure.

  • @ 15. Without judgment or bashing a fellow cop, you are on point with your assessment. I agree and felt the same with every aspect that you mentioned. It’s totally a training issue. It’s very unfortunate and sad for all involved.

  • @Not Buying It, Something is wrong here. Let me touch on a couple of things. The point has already been conceded that competent, constitutional investigation(s) into the actions of the Minnesota officer’s conduct may very well produce the conclusion you seem to have already reached. I asked you to put away your pitchfork for a little while and you keep thrusting wildly in air trying to hit a Frankenstein that might not even be there (e.g., see the Michael Brown matter in Ferguson, MO). You did manage to shift your emphasis from “NO excuse for the shooting…he was still murdered” (first post) to “a tragic and fatal mistake…homicide” (second post). My comments challenged the logic (e.g., sequence) of your reasoning, which remains suspect. If the shooting was a “mistake”, then it is logically and empirically possible that the mistake has an excuse, i.e., an ostensible reason for the shooting, even if that reason (excuse) was made in error.

    The Constitution – US and of the various states – is not merely aspirational text; it is a document of profound practical importance for every sworn law enforcement official in the US. There have been a number of sworn LASD deputies, managers, and executives going to prison recently because they have been convicted for serious crimes, violations of other people’s constitutional rights (though in Tanaka’s case certainly, not even close to all the crimes for which he may be culpable). The fact that men and women fall short of the ideal is no argument against having an ideal. You wouldn’t, for example, call on us to turn in our Bibles merely because we fall short of God’s law? Indeed, it is because we are so fallible as human beings that heightens the importance of discovering or creating the ideal in the first place. If your idea is to have some sort of Mad Max, Purge, or Game of Thrones environment, you my friend are not likely to survive; the recent anarchist call for de-policing the US would if achieved result in a tribalism you cannot even imagine. Instead, our social contract, its theory and its practice, is protected by constitutional citadels and centurions, guardians and, when necessary, warriors (e.g., San Bernardino) who swear oaths. The ideal is designed to protect you, your family, your friends, and your neighbors, as well as police officers. It is even designed to protect the rights of the worst among us. I looked up a Gallup poll several days ago tracking the public’s trust in government over time (1958-2014, I believe it was). The public reported great trust in government (Ike, JFK) until the Johnson Administration, further declines during Nixon, Ford, and Carter, a brief rise during Reagan and Bush (through to 1990), then declines with Bush, Clinton, Bush, and especially during Obama. From the data I’ve seen, fewer people trust government and its institutions under Obama (e.g., “If you like your doctor….”, IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious gunrunning Scandal, executive orders, TARP, and a hundred other financial and political scandals) than any previous president since maybe Hoover. The earlier references above to Saul Alinsky’s work suggest that Obama could not care less about his popularity or about public trust in government. It is not a primary feature of the Alinsky theory. For Obama, it is all about the consolidation of power to form, in his view, “a more perfect union.” But it has little fidelity to the old principles, which stand in his way.

    Anyway, I returned the same fire I am giving you onto Ms. Marilyn Mosby, the shockingly incompetent, anti-police, pro-rioters, pro-BLM, pride of Tuskegee University, Baltimore prosecutor of six police officers in the tragic Freddie Gray case. For purposes of this post I will assume in your circle of troubadours you’re aware of Mosby. Is it fair to suppose from your background, worldview, and set of beliefs that you have an ally in Ms. Mosby? That you share her views on the way she prosecutes police officers in the Freddy Gray matter? Is she and the commercial media that uses her your alternative illustration? (The fact that Mosby comes from a law enforcement family does not immunize her from criticism.)

    So, let’s cut to the chase: Who am I dealing with here? Are you one of the so-called ‘social justice warriors’ I keep running into? One of the zealots, oozing with racial piety and purity? Or just a confused, wayward soul who is understandably emotional about a controversial incident between a police officer and a citizen? I can’t very well continue to read you the riot act (in this polite manner) if you’re just a regular guy or gal simply getting played by the cult of low information and mass media propaganda.

  • Brizz: Your Poli Sci Essay has at least garnered you a highlight moment to spiff up your views. The Socrates hat that you attempt to wear (on the surface) looks good but is too large for your head.
    The challenge to persuade some and disuade others is amusing at best. Your rebuttal guided by the “Smartest guy in a one man stall” mentality is self serving.
    Never enough cages for Paper Tigers.

  • #19
    Not Buying It:
    Speaking of the “Smartest guy in a one man stall”, essay is capitalized in error. Dissuade is misspelled.
    You were asked a question. Your effort at deflecting the question by replying with a somewhat witty, mostly sarcastic response falls far short of brilliiance. LAUSD educated? Perhaps you could get someone at the next BLM rally to proofread your comments.

  • @ oh well. I preciate that ……see you at Hillary’s victory party. No need to appear in blackface, you should be safe. So glad that you shot from the lip and not the hip.

  • @Not Buying It, You’ve found me out. You’ve tricked me into revealing my motives. What a clever boy or girl you are. As my colleague (for whom I have great respect) suggests, you have a penchant for avoiding questions and changing the subject. This leads me to believe that you are in the former category, not a regular Joe or Jane, but one of the many “social justice warriors” sent out by your network to troll websites and blogs in order to “pick a target [the Minnesota police officer], freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” (Alinsky’s Rule #13). In so doing you (your group) appear to want to build a mass media, Salem witch trial kind of case against the Minnesota officer before all of the knowable facts have been evaluated, and to usurp the old, constitutional principles being discussed in this particular blog (Dallas Conversations). I know this because your objections to my arguments, such as they are, are not substantive, or even procedural. They are purely ideological in the Alinsky sense. Your problem (and the challenge for your group) is that there remain many people, including many across law enforcement who are aware of your playbook.

    Back to the shallow end, SJW/BLM pogue, I believe the lifeguard has left the pool. Next time send along a man or woman from your outfit who knows what the *uck he or she is doing. With all due respect.

  • Brizz and Questions, I find it amusing the two of you are all over Alinsky, yet I’m guessing you’re going to support a guy who has admitted to keeping a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand. He also seems to keep heaping praise on dictators like Putin and Saddam.


  • Brizz, Enough of your Aryan Dossier, re: “Conversations After Dallas” dialogue here on WLA. Previously denied “Due Process” within many demographics (no mas) becoming more dynamic day by day. Reconciliation among Americans is the only resolution minus a revolution. The “Browning of America” increases the fear factor of many who think like you. I marvel at your reluctance to see reality.

  • In order to respond to Dos Centavos, I have to (unfortunately) first respond to LATBG, as the responses are related.

    LATBG, it simply does not follow that to criticize political leader A (or an offshoot of that movement like BLM, or one of its theoretical architects: Alinsky and his impressive work), one necessarily agrees with political leader B. I’m afraid that’s just shoddy thinking. Unless you can offer some evidence or reason for the feral speculation, I’d suggest a little more judiciousness from a guy with your good reputation.

    Dos Centavos, likewise, offering reasoned critiques of a leftist, militant, anti-police movement like BLM – shall we start with its racialist incarnation at Ferguson (“hands up, don’t shoot”) – does not entail that those making the critiques are promoting an “Aryan Dossier.” That’s worse than shoddy thinking, that’s simply foolishness, a ‘source’ fallacy, among other problems. You can do better. I happen to agree with the general concept of reconciliation, and perhaps you can propose what you mean here, but I do not support it through thuggery and ideological capitulation no matter where it comes from. Finally, what do you mean when you say the “Browning of America increases the fear factor of many who think like you”? Embedded in this assertion are some assumptions. What assumptions are you making in this assertion? What is the color of reason? Precisely what is the hue of logic? Kindly answer these questions. Let us reason together.

  • The turnaround on posts is a little slow (this is a second pending post), and I’m pressed for time. There may be other issues to address on another occasion. Centavos, you made an empirical claim: “Previously denied ‘Due Process’ within many demographics (no mas) [is] becoming more dynamic day by day.” Fair enough. I’ve already made the claim that constitutionally protected due process is a universal feature. Time to pay the organ grinder. Kindly give evidence for your claim, the source and data. A mere assertion means shit. Second, you mentioned my “reluctance to see reality.” Explain the reality I am reluctant to see. Be specific. Third, while you’re swinging a machete to chop down imaginary “Aryans” who aren’t in the conversation, I’m certain you will also want to take the occasion to condemn the organizations called La Raza (The Race) and the separatist movement MEChA (“we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlan”) and all their fine work toward E Pluribus Unum. If you’re not up to it, send someone else from the outfit. Maybe one of the occupiers over at City Hall can step out for a reefer smoke, bong hit, or a curbside restroom break to respond, perhaps someone who knows more than “Hey hey, Ho ho, the Fuzz done gots to go.” Personally, I’d prefer someone who has studied or taught “critical race theory” to take the time to weigh in with her/his views on Conversations after Dallas. I believe an exchange with a critical race theorist – there are more than a few in the area – would be illuminating and educational for the general public to read. Fortunately, there is a little more time to expose the playbook being used against American law enforcement. Am certain others are in the queue ready for batting practice (in one direction, or another). But I’ll need to depart late tomorrow for lovely vacation with my brown people, who actually took the time to study logic, mathematics, and reasoning.

  • It seems the disgraced, dysfunctional and delusional Leroy D. Baca was recently a guest speaker on race relations. Now isn’t that rich coming from an individual who will presumably be sentenced tomorrow to Federal prison, yet through his attorneys claim to be suffering so bad from Alzheimer’s that he should avoid prison and just stay home, and rest. Leroy, even in your disgraced retirement, you embarrass us. Would love to see a video of this dynamic presentation.

  • Not Buying It,
    I understand your frustration. Life isn’t fair. If only your feet were as fast as your mouth, you would’ve got that free ride to college. Don’t despair, there’s a bright side to your predicament. Instead of being angry because you’re only filling the water bottles and washing the jock straps, you can take solace in knowing that every team needs their water boys.

Leave a Comment