Home

Who Inflicts the Most Gun Violence in America? The U.S. Government and Its Police Forces

3 Comments

 The Rutherford Institute

By John W. Whitehead
August 12, 2019

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is often the case that police shootings, incidents where law enforcement officers pull the trigger on civilians, are left out of the conversation on gun violence. But a police officer shooting a civilian counts as gun violence.

Every time an officer uses a gun against an innocent or an unarmed person contributes to the culture of gun violence in this country.”—Journalist Celisa Calacal

Yes, gun violence is a problem in America, although violent crime generally remains at an all-time low.

Yes, mass shootings are a problem in America, although while they are getting deadlier, they are not getting more frequent.

Yes, mentally ill individuals embarking on mass shooting sprees are a problem in America.

However, tighter gun control laws and so-called “intelligent” background checks fail to protect the public from the most egregious perpetrator of gun violence in America: the U.S. government.

Consider that five years after police shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old man in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been no relief from the government’s gun violence.

Here’s what we’ve learned about the government’s gun violence since Ferguson, according to The Washington Post: If you’re a black American, you’ve got a greater chance of being shot by police. If you’re an unarmed black man, you’re four times more likely to be killed by police than an unarmed white man. Most people killed by police are young men. Since 2015, police have shot and killed an average of 3 people per day. More than 2,500 police departments have shot and killed at least one person since 2015. And while the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed, their weapons ranged from guns to knives to toy guns.  READ MORE HERE:

Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

5 Comments

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011

_______________________________________________

A Phoenix police officer, called to a private home as the result of a family quarrel, decides not only to shoot and kill the family dog, but also the 29 year old man inside the house who was posing no threat according to the officers partner, but who informed the officer that he needed a warrant.  At this point, the officer tells the man; “I don’t need no warrant, m—— f—–!”  And delivers a fatal shot. (Again, according to the officers partner)

The head of the police officers union weighs in on the killing.  In defense of the officer he claims that “due process” must be followed and that the officer is innocent until proven guilty.  In the second news video, we see that the head of the PLEA union now says that there is additional evidence and that the officer will be acquitted, most likely. 

So we should afford the officer due process, and consider him innocent until proven guilty?  But not afford the man at home in his own house the same courtesy? 

While the head of the union claims an investigation is being conducted and that the officer has been suspended, we all know how this is most likely to end up.  The union head talks about how officers are people from the community and are carefully selected for their positions.  Based on what?  Long gone are the days when those with napolean complexes were weeded out and not allowed to be employed by law enforcement.  Crisman was finally fired by the Phoenix police department and the blue brotherhood of Homeland Security is holding BBQ’s and collecting donations to support him while he stands trial. 

No update on the status of the officers partner and his report on what was in reality a cold blooded killing by a badge heavy officer.

Reports of this kind are coming in from across the country with alarming regularity as a result of the militarization of law enforcement under Homeland Security.  Here is the most recent update on the Arizona situation:

I don’t believe there is one law enforcement vehicle in the country that still has the phrase: “To protect and serve” emblem on the doors.  According to a local sheriff’s deputy here, “There is no obligation to protect anyone by law enforcement unless we have them in custody, and then it is limited.  Our job has been redefined.   Our focus now is to protect the government and infrastructure from the general public because of the threat of homegrown terrorism.”

Heil Hitler!

%d bloggers like this: