Do “Police Target Black Men”?-2
   Before moving forward with points 5-8* unveiling evidence against the prevailing mantra of our contemporary culture: “Police Target Black Men!”, I need to remind you of the narrative which drives it:
            i.Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd**
            ii.Chauvin is White and Floyd is Black, therefore Chauvin
               murdered Floyd because he was Black. Chauvin is a racist!
            iii.Because White police officers, like Chauvin, also murder Black
                men, therefore police officers are racists.  
            iv.Because White Privilege allows White police officers to murder
               Black men without justice, therefore, America is systemically
               racist!
            v.Because White people created racist America, therefore White
              people are racists.
 
Now…let’s continue with more irrefragable evidence against “Police Target Black Men!”
 
5.
In 2019, a study was published by PNAS on police shootings which found, “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.”  Here
 
6.
“In 2015, under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, a Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects.”  Here
 
7.
Derek Chauvin was just recently convicted of the murder of George Floyd and sentenced to 22.5 years in prison. Very interestingly, during his trial, the prosecution did not bring one charge of racism, i.e.hate crime, against Chauvin! In other words, the number one reason for riots, looting, and uncontrolled vitriol, all across America after Floyd’s death---WHITE RACISM---was not even used in Chauvin’s trial! Why?!?! There can be only one reason: No evidence exists that Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd because he was Black! On the contrary however---even without one shred of evidence---the media certainly convicted Chauvin of White racism!
    Let’s be honest!!! Do you have the temerity to believe that no investigative reporter scoured Chauvin’s past to find even one racist remark that could be used against him? I mean just one “N-word”; one “Coon”; one “Gorilla” would suffice!! Liberals went back to high school to get evidence on Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh, and you think that no one did this with Derek Chauvin, when proof for the liberal accusation: “America is systemically racist!” is at stake?!?!  I repeat…let’s be honest!

 ​8.
Dr. Roland Fryer, a Harvard economist, and the youngest Black to receive tenure, did research into police shootings and concluded: “On the most extreme use of force – officer involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”
   The New York Times reported: Here
-“Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black.”
-"Mr. Fryer found that Blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between Blacks and Whites."
-“In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.”
-“didn’t find racial differences in officer-involved shootings” when he studied 1,399 of them in California, Texas, Florida, Colorado, and Washington from 2000 to 2015.
-“No matter how we analyzed the data, we found no racial differences in shootings overall, in any city in particular, or in any subset of the data.”
-“It is the most surprising result of my career!”
 
Why was Mr Fryer “surprised”? Because he went into this study assuming that Blacks were targeted by White police officers! In other words, the media worked its magic on his Black mind! However, because he is statistician, his integrity demanded that he look at the evidence objectively!! When he allowed the evidence to speak, he found ‘no’ support for the idea that: “Police Target Black Men!!”
 
In other words, “Police Target Black Men” is not a reality, but a media driven myth!!
 
 
There is still more to come…stay tuned!!!
 
 
*See Tidbit one for points 1-4
**Floyd can be replaced by Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, etc.; and Chauvin by any White cop…and the narrative remains the same.
 
 
Quotebit
"If you'll spend one hour a day, every day for five years on a given subject, within five years you'll become an expert on that subject."    -Earl Nightengale

   For the last five years, the cry of our culture has been: “Police target Black men!”  After the tv media posted repeated images of multiple Black men killed by police, the response was  predictable: anger, hatred, and division at best; and riots, looting, property damage, and the loss of at least 25 lives, at worst.
   However, what is also intriguing is the supporting ‘narrative’ for the assertion that “Police target Black Men”! And…what is that ‘narrative’?
   Simply,
            i.Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd*
            ii.Chauvin is White and Floyd is Black, therefore Chauvin
                murdered Floyd because he was Black. Chauvin is a racist!
            iii.Because White police officers, like Chauvin, also murder Black
                men, therefore police officers are racists.  
            iv.Because White Privilege allows White police officers to murder
               Black men without  justice, therefore, America is systemically
               racist!
             v.Because White people created racist America, therefore White
               people are racists.
 
   In other words, the number one piece of evidence that America is systemically racist is “Police Target Black Men”! Over the next couple of Tidbits, allow me to offer 10 facts that refute “Police target Black men!”, and its ‘narrative’!
 
1.Following are the actual numbers by race killed by police:
1999 to 2013: Whites – 3160; Blacks 1724. (Source CDC )
2014: White-261: Black-131; (Source: CDC)
2015: Total 994; White – 497; Black- 258; Hispanic-172; other-38; unknown-29
            -Unarmed: White-31; Black-36; Hispanic-19
            -Male-952;  Female-42
2016: Total 961; White-468; Black-234; Hispanic-160; other-42 ; unknown-58
           -Unarmed: White-20   Black-18   Hispanic-9
            -Male-921;  Female-40
2017: Total 986; White-459; Black-224; Hispanic-179; other-44; unknown-80;
            -Unarmed: White-24; Black-19; Hispanic-12
           -Male - 940;  Female-45
2018: Total 990; White-454; Black-229; Hispanic-165; other40-; unknown-103;
             -Unarmed: White-25; Black-23; Hispanic-8
             -Male-938; Female-52
2019: Total 999; White-405; Black-249; Hispanic-163; other-41; unknown-145;
             -Unarmed: White-25; Black-14; Hispanic-11;
            -Male -956; Female-43
2020: Total -1006; White-453; Black-237; Hispanic-167; other-27; unknown-122  
            -Unarmed: White-23; Black-18; Hispanic-?
            -Male 968; Female 38**
How is it possible for police to target Blacks, and kill more Whites? If you hunt for ducks, and you are clearly informed deer are out of season, and you return with 3 deer and no ducks—you cannot claim you were targeting ducks, but accidently shot the deer! Bullets don’t curve! And…you will certainly go to jail!
 
2.If Blacks are being targeted by police, why are ‘any’ Whites and Hispanics shot…at all? Are police blind? Can you honestly contend that police can’t ‘see’ the difference between a White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.? Furthermore, every year the gap between the deaths of Hispanics and Blacks is much closer than the gap between Blacks and Whites—yet there are no Hispanic riots against Blacks…nor Whites!!! Why not?!?! And finally, the number of Whites killed by police—every year--is nearly double that of Blacks! And, in 2016 and 2017, the numbers of Whites killed by police, were in fact double that of Blacks! In other words, the numbers of deaths between Whites and Blacks---every year--are not even close--yet Blacks are targeted? If a basketball team doubles the score of their opposition---it’s called a ‘Blow-out’! A ‘Blow-out’ means the losing team doesn’t even belong on the same court with the winners! For anyone to contend Blacks are targeted by police when Whites are killed at double the rate---can only come from dishonesty and delusion!!!
 
3.In their desire to: i.create anger in Black people;  in order to, ii.possess evidence for their ‘narrative’, liberals were forced to manipulate and deceive! How, you may ask? The answer is, the ‘context’! Allow me to explain. For example, how is it possible to look at the numbers of those shot and killed, in let’s say, 2016: White-468; Black-234; Hispanic-160—and then ‘honestly’ arrive at the conclusion that police target Blacks? Let’s be real, not even ‘Common Core math’ can make 234 > 468! So, what did they do? Very simply, the ‘media’ took the numbers: 468, 234, and 160; and removed the number of Blacks ‘234’ from its context—and proceeded to restrict images on tv to Blacks killed by police! Please, ask yourself an honest question, in the last 8 years, can you name even 1 White person killed by police--'that made national news’?!?! How is this possible when so many more Whites are killed by police? Because its intentional!!!!!
   Allow me to offer another sports illustration. Over the past 20 years or so, as far as I am aware, there have been two NFL players convicted and imprisoned for murder, or conspiracy to murder. If you take those two people, and separate them from the context of all the other NFL players, and then focus media attention on them, you can make the case that the NFL is full of murderers!
   For example, one man asks, “how is crime in the NFL?” Another answers boldly:
           a.John and Bill (fictitious names) played in the NFL
           b.John and Bill committed murder!
           c.Therefore, the NFL has a problem with murder!
   Of course, this is absurd, but no more absurd than removing the Black deaths from the context of the number of White and Hispanic deaths…and then conclude that police target Blacks!
 
4.However, the clincher for me happened in 2016 when Keith Lamont Scott, a Black man was killed by police on 9/20/2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Of course, at his death, because he was Black, Mr. Scott instantly became national news. The tv media incessantly pushed his images from East to West, and North to South…and anger and riots ensued. However, the media conveniently left-out two critical facts: i.The police officer who killed Mr Scott was Black!!! ii.Incredibly, when you look at police shootings on the ‘very same day’ Scott was killed—9/20/16—you find five White men killed by White policemen!*** In other words, the media made Mr Scott’s death national news because he was Black, while intentionally ignoring the 5 White men---because they were White! But why? Because the deaths of the five White men did not fit the narrative: “Police target Black men!” AND “America is a systemically racist nation; and has been from the beginning!”
 
…5-10 will continue next week!
 
_______________________________
*Floyd can be replaced by Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, etc.; and Chauvin by any White cop…and the narrative remains the same.
 
**Total numbers by gender killed by police: Male-5798; Female-269. This is quite a huge difference, multiplied times larger than the gap between Whites and Blacks, yet why are there no accusations of police gender discrimination?!?! 
 
***Check it out for yourself. Here are their names: 1.Charles Dove (Tennessee); 2.Joshua Scott  (Florida); 3.Michael Goodale (Connecticut); 4.Thomas Tucker (Colorado); 5.Sandy Joe Duke – (Tennessee). Furthermore, one day before (9/19), three Whites were killed by police; and one day after(9/21), two more Whites were killed by police. If you’re counting, not one of the 10 Whites warranted national news—but the liberal news thought Keith Lamont Scott did!!! I wonder why?!!?
 
Quotebit
"You can tell you're on the road to success; it's uphill all the way." -Paul Harvey

          “…you can’t do bad for the mere sake of badness…no one ever did
           a cruel action simply because cruelty is wrong—only because
            cruelty was pleasant, even useful to him.” 
                                        -C.S. Lewis, Christian apologist, philosopher
 
   What does C.S. Lewis mean? In practice, mankind does not rob banks because it’s wrong, but because it benefits them—which is the ‘human’ idea of good! In short, men rob banks because they believe it is good. In other words, mankind can do good for the sake of goodness, but no one does evil for the sake of evil; but rather because they believe their evil is good; or possesses some degree of good. Therefore, and ironically, men can ‘only’ do evil--by and through—that which is good. In his book ‘Making Gay Okay’, Robert Reilly quotes Hilaire Belloc*, “Every evil is its own good”.  The Bible confirms this evil rationalization: “…but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” Judges 17:6.**
   Dr Reilly offers a clear example of this truth using Dr Karl Brandt, who was the personal doctor of Adolf Hitler. Dr Brandt ran the Nazi’s Aktion T-4 euthanasia program, where the motto used to murder the elderly was “life unworthy of life”. At the Nuremberg trials, Dr Brandt testified, “When I said yes to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can be deliverance. Death is life.” He was hung!
   Before we look closer at Brandt’s rationalizations, please note the extreme power of rationalization. The context of Brandt’s remarks was Nazi, Germany, where rationalization was the foundation of Hitler’s regime…and ultimately led to the murder of 6 million Jews. In other words, Dr Reilly hits the target: “If rationalization can justify and mandate the murder of millions, what can it not do?”***
   Now, let’s examine Brandt’s rationalizations. 1)First, notice Dr Brandt had deep convictions on the morality of his actions. At Nuremberg, he testified before all the world that he really believed it was morally right to murder the elderly. Therefore, his conviction was not the problem; he in fact stood for what he believed! The question is how did he come to his belief?
   In reality, the logic is fairly simple. Hitler, the creator of Nazism, adopted Fredrich Nietzsche’s ‘ubermensch’, which meant super-man. In applying Nietzsche’s ubermensch to Germany, Hitler declared Germans to be Aryans, i.e.the Super-race! However, a super-man requires super-powers, so Hitler adopted Nietzsche’s pathway to super-powers, which was suffering. Nietzsche wrote, “life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation.”**** The suffering the Nazis had to endure, was the pain of achieving their idea of greatness through subjugating the weak. In other words, the Nazis had to suffer through the resistance of war to impose their order upon the world.  
  2)Dr Brandt’s next rationalization was the “conviction” allowing him to euthanize the elderly. And, what was that? The Nazis believed “life unworthy of life” consumed the earth’s resources preventing the strong from being able to fulfill Germany’s divine destiny!  Hence, along with the catchy motto, “life unworthy of life”; they created “Death can be deliverance” and “Death is life”. Once these catchy phrases were imbibed into the German consciousness, murder became “life”! In other words, evil became good(Is5:20). Without God, Who alone is good, the evil nature of man automatically defines evil as good.
   Tragically, liberalism creates these very same kinds of rationalizations. We only have space for one example, abortion. How can this nation rationalize the murder of 65 million babies?
   Liberals do at least two things:
            1.They sexualized American culture, creating a “freedom” to
               indulge in as much sex, and any kind of sex desired. To
               establish this point, if you google the word ‘liberal’ in the 1828
               Webster’s dictionary, you will find 9 entries. The final entry is:
               “licentious; free to excess.” ‘Licentious’ means sexual license! In
                other words, ‘sexual license’ is the real face of liberalism, and
                has been, for more than 200 years!!!
            2.They de-humanized the baby in the womb. Through repeated
                lies, the consciences of millions have been seared as with a hot
                 iron (1Tim4:2) to call evil good(Is5:20).
 
   First, on one side, liberals literally teach sexual perversion***** beginning as early as grade school on through to our Universities.  One quick example will suffice. At many universities “Sex Weeks” have become vogue. These “Weeks” include pornographers, sex toy vendors, polymory activists, and classes such as ‘Fornication 101’, etc., etc., etc. Obviously, the end result of such sexual license is more sex, which ends with more pregnancies. Of course, because college students can’t have babies, the end is more abortions!
   Second, on the other side, in the antebellum south, slave fathers were called “drivers”; mothers were called “breeders”; children were called “increase”; and in general, slaves were called “property”. Why special names? To sear or harden the conscience. It becomes easier to treat humans worse than animals, when first de-humanizing them.
   As far as I am aware, dehumanizing the oppressed is a practice of every oppressor group in human history. I coined a name for this: Word Manipulation. Of course, liberals practice this phenomenon to rationalize abortion, calling the baby in the womb: a fetus; an embryo; pregnancy tissue; a product of conception; and, even changing the name of ‘abortion’ to ‘pro-choice’! I repeat, it’s easier to rationalize murder when the focus is on ‘freedom of choice’ as opposed to a living baby in the womb.
  In conclusion, using both sides, liberals rationalize, which is a philosophical term for justifying sin, i.e.evil. For this reason, Romans 3:19 teaches every mouth must be stopped, that the world may be guilty before God. In other words, the natural propensity of humanity is to justify their own sin, to keep from being guilty. On the contrary, the law of God (Rom3:20) is given to both reveal sin, and subsequently to shut the mouths, i.e.bring conviction, to rationalizers.  However, the consequence of participating in this evil, is not simply semantics…but mass murder! For the wages of sin is death(Rom6:23)!
 
   Tragically, liberals have made rationalization their home!
  
 *pg 8
**See also Pro12:15; Pro21:2
***Robert Reilly, ‘Making Gay Okay’, pg 8
****“Beyond Good and Evil, Fredrich Nietzsche, 259
*****Under the mask of tolerance, freedom, and kindness is the real face of liberalism: sexual perversion, i.e.sexual license!
 
 
Quotebit
Repentance has been cancelled in the church, like virtues in the culture.
                                    -Pastor Derrick Jackson