Mob Rule

I probably shouldn’t write about this, but I’m going to anyway. I feel this incident has spun almost out of control and people need to get a grip and think before they react any further.

This week, Danny Rodriguez’s mother called police when Danny became angry and violent. Phoenix police officer Sergio Vergillo was the first to arrive on scene and called for backup; officer Richard Chrisman responded. Verifiable information is scarce at best, but this is what has been claimed: Rodriguez told officers they couldn’t come in without a warrant, Chrisman put his gun to Rodriguez’s head and said “I don’t need no warrant, motherf***er,” they went inside, and at some point Vergillo tazed Rodriguez, Chrisman deployed OC (pepper) spray, shot the dog, got into a physical struggle with Rodriguez, then shot him.

Naturally, not all of the information coming from the media is accurate. Most outlets aren’t even relying on the police report (they rarely, if ever, give a full accounting of events as they actually happened, usually relying on hyper-emotional witnesses or people who claim to have seen it because they just want to be on TV). Before you go any further, though, click here and watch the news video.

What’s the first thing you see?

I see a stream of Latino protesters, the leader carrying a pole with three flags on it. Is the American flag on top? Nope. It’s at the bottom, below the Mexican flag and one other that I can’t quite place (if anyone else can tell, by all means, share). The very first thing we see in this protest is a protester basically declaring that the United States is inferior to Latino nations. That’s hilarious, considering the fact that law and order in most Latino countries – to include Mexico – is a joke.

Then you see signs, some of them in Spanish, some in English, and small children carrying graphic signs declaring the police are murderers. Then, they talk to protester Manuel Martinez. His first words are, “let’s set aside the fact that he’s Latino.”

Really? You want us to set that aside? I don’t think you really do want it to be “set aside”, because a few things are quite evident: first of all, you’re only protesting with fellow Latinos. Second, you’re holding up signs in Spanish decrying “la policia” as murderers. Third, you are openly and brazenly disrespecting the US flag by flying it underneath the Mexican flag. You don’t want us to set aside the fact that he’s Latino. You want everyone to believe this was a racially-motivated crime so you have ammunition at your next SB 1070 rally.

They say that this incident is driving a bigger wedge between Latinos and law enforcement. Actually, the only one driving a wedge between Latinos and law enforcement are the Latinos crying racism over everything that happens. Where is the outrage over Latino gang members deliberately targeting black people in Los Angeles? When you’re willing to call out the racism in your own ranks, your outrage will be a little more believable.

Then we see Carlos Galindo, wearing a Vietnam Veteran cap, railing about how unfair it is that Chrisman is out on bail. “He is getting special treatment,” Galindo yells. “And the Latin community, we are not – I repeat, we are NOT – gonna let up until the officer is back in jail, among other prisoners!” This statement galls me. What he is suggesting is that because the Latino community is outraged about this incident, more charges should immediately be brought and Chrisman should be held behind bars without bail. Mr. Galindo, thank you for your service, but what you are suggesting is mob rule. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, sir, but here in the United States we don’t work that way. You can get pissed all you want, but our justice system has certain requirements that must be met. Until the investigation is complete and enough evidence is found, he’s not going to be re-arrested. He is not getting any special treatment. Any person not charged with murder because of an unknown amount of evidence or an ongoing investigation would be treated the same way. My friend, Tony Holly, was murdered in 2007; if his killer, Bryan Wayne Hulsey, had the $1 million available to post bail, he’d have been released, too.

Martinez then says, “this was a US citizen that was killed in cold blood by an officer who took an oath and wore a badge and walked in and killed someone.” Okay, so that precipitates a protest? Where the hell were you when Nick Erfle was murdered by an illegal alien gang member? Where was the outrage when Marc Atkinson was ambushed and murdered by Mexicans who had come here looking for work and turned to drug running when they couldn’t get jobs legally? You hardly lifted a finger when those two incidents happened. Being angry is perfectly normal. Calling for law enforcement to dump a person back in jail simply because you don’t like the circumstances is a little ridiculous. We don’t work the way Mexico does. Sorry.

The most incredible scene in the entire protest, I think, was the protester carrying a sign that said, “Eye for an Eye.”

Really?

If you want that, then why are you protesting against SB 1070 by calling it inhumane? If you are going to claim that an enforcement of federal law is somehow against human decency, then don’t you dare stand on American soil and demand an eye for an eye. That is an outrage we will not abide. The actions of our justice system are not dictated by mob rule. If they were, a lot of innocent people would have gone down for crimes they didn’t commit. We don’t know all of the facts in this case yet, too – so take a step back and breathe. Think before you react.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Mob Rule

  1. “This week, Danny Rodriguez’s mother called police when Danny became angry and violent. ”

    Another family feud that spills into the laps of people who have no cause in it and in my opinion, no duty to intervene. Let his mom solve her own family problem. If she does not want him around, then get a gun mama and send your son a convincing message.

    See what happens when you put your business in the street? Never put your business in the streets.

    Has his mom been flogged? She needs to be flogged.

  2. People rely way too much on the police to take care of issues they don’t have the gumption to deal with themselves. One cop I know from a different state told me about a call he went on where a 12-year-old girl had decided she didn’t want to go to school and was sitting, frumping, in her room. He said he walked into a very expensive home, talked to mom and dad, and upon being told that the kid hadn’t been violent he walked into the kids’ room. There he saw two different gaming consoles, a large flat-screen TV, a private bathroom, and bookcases full of DVD’s.

    He turned to the parents and said, “I see one…two…three…four…um, a total of six privileges in this bedroom that you can remove. If she doesn’t wanna go to school, take her TV, her games, her DVD’s, her cellphone, and all this other stuff away from her. Then she won’t wanna stay home.”

    The parents were astounded.

  3. “The parents were astounded.”

    If I were the police officer I would have fined them for misusing law enforcement. A child refusing to to school is not a police matter.

  4. There are a lot of things that aren’t police matters, yet the general public expects the police to do everything. They’re supposed to make kids go to school, enforce traffic laws (without being too harsh, mind you), solve all crimes ranging from simple theft to identity theft to grand theft auto to murder and make sure they protect you from the boogieman BEFORE he kills someone.

    Officers are supposed to accomplish all of this without ever offending someone.

    Many moons ago – I was a teenager – I read a joke in Reader’s Digest about a mother with her four-year-old in a restaurant arguing with the little boy about eating his peas. The kid just didn’t want to eat his peas, and there were two cops having lunch nearby, so she promptly said, “do you want me to have one of those policemen come over here and make you eat your peas?”

    I didn’t understand the humor in this then, but I sure as hell understand it now…one of the officers got up, smiled at the mom, shook the little boy’s hand and said, “you wanna be big and strong like me? I did it without ever eating a single pea.”

  5. You are sorely mistaken sir. Please do your homework prior to blogging irresponsible comments. Number one the person with the Mexican flag was a person that arrived to protest on her own. We suggested that the Mexican flag was not necessary but as I am sure you would agree, we can’t stop her from expressing herself as she pleases in these great United States. One of your other failures is that you falsely identified me. I was not wearing a Veterans cap. I am not a veteran. That was Manny Martinez. I am Carlos Galindo and I’m the one that organized the protests. I had much more information than was readily available to the general public including yourself based on the fact that I m a radio journalists and have developed many sources. Given the information I had and given the Phoenix P.D.’s failure to properly investigate other high profile cases, I decided to ensure that we applied the necessary pressure to not only ensure a proper investigation but that the County Attorney file the appropriate charges for this horrendous crime. This has never been about race. I have no way to control all protesters. If signs were brought with other messages, I can only ask them to stay focused on our message. Please use the same measure for me as you would for yourself. If you hold a protest against those who have voted to maintain don’t ask don’t tell in place, would you be able to control people who might show up with signs saying everyone hates gays? If you ran them off, wouldn’t you be thwarting their 1st amendment rights? The problem with so called conservatives like yourself is that you claim to fight for conservatives rights and for equality. Yet when U.S. Citizens protest you immediately protest their protesting by writing ignorant comments on your blog. You say your friend was killed, that the bond was so high the Defendant could not make the bond. That is exactly the same rule of law that should be applied to cases that warrant high bonds and aggressive charges. We have a 14 year veteran of the police force who at one time worked for the Phoenix Police Department’s internal affairs dept. He reported this horrendous crime. Officer Virgillo has an impeccable record and he did the right thing when he reported a crime that occurred in front of his very eyes. On the other hand you have a rogue Phoenix cop that according to a credible witness committed a horrendous crime. Richard Chrisman was a rogue cop that had previously been reprimanded for having used excessive force against a “suspect” and had conspired and executed the planting of evidence on a mentally disabled woman. The video that you may have already seen displays that corrupt and shameful behavior by a sworn officer.

    I fully understand how the system works and I understand that County Attorney Rick Romley couldn’t charge this rogue cop with more serious charges without having the sufficient evidence to bring those charges. The problem? The Phoenix Police department does in fact have a history of shoddy investigations and a history of providing the Maricopa County Attorney’s office with incomplete investigations. In this case, had it been you or I, we would be sitting behind bars based on the testimony of an outstanding officer who witnessed the alleged murder and who clearly indicated it was an unwarranted shooting. Our bond would either have been in the millions or it may have been considered a non-bondable offense. Why are we to apply the law differently to a rogue cop than to you or I? We are all U.S. Citizens proud of this country and it’s laws right? Let me make something perfectly clear here. The protests not only brought a more accelerated response from the County Attorney’s office, a more thorough investigation on behalf of the Phoenix Police Dept. but it brought tremendous changes within the Phoenix Police Department. Commanders were fired and a new task force to deal with community issues was constructed and implemented. These changes are crucial for community and police relationships to flourish. Community members cannot be distrustful of law enforcement and should be able to report crimes without the feeling of repercussion. You never know when it might be a gay couple arguing who calls the police and one of these wonderful beings could be shot and killed in cold blood just as Danny Rodriguez was killed.

    Finally, please stop making this about race. This has nothing to do with race. This has to do with a rogue cop and the death of a U.S. Citizen. Please quit comparing everything that happens that involves a Latino to Mexico and their policies and procedures. One might venture to say that you are a racist or a bigot if every time something happens regarding a Latino you are quick to bring up Mexico and SB1070. Judge others as you would like to be judged. Every time you are going to sit down and blog, every time you are going to speak, please take a moment to process your thoughts, place yourself in the shoes of that person you will be blogging about. (This may require objectivity you don’t possess). Once you have done the aforementioned and after doing the appropriate thorough homework on the issue you will be addressing, write away, You will sound far more credible and you readers will not just be yes men but diverse sectors of the community who may or may not agree with you but will be able to tell by and through your writing that you have used some objectivity.

  6. “You are sorely mistaken sir.”

    Try “ma’am”. I am a woman.

    “Please do your homework prior to blogging irresponsible comments.”

    I did my homework, and nothing I said was irresponsible.

    “One of your other failures is that you falsely identified me.”

    No, I didn’t – at least not deliberately. I based who I identified on the news video on the link above. If you have an issue, take it up with Fox 10.

    “If you hold a protest against those who have voted to maintain don’t ask don’t tell in place, would you be able to control people who might show up with signs saying everyone hates gays?”

    I don’t attend protests as a protester. I personally don’t see the point, although I would never try to take away another person’s right to peaceably assemble (as is guaranteed in the First Amendment). If I did organize a protest – and an issue would have to be pretty strong for me to do so – I would keep strict rules about what message was being portrayed by those in my group. If anybody showed up with a sign that I felt was inappropriate I would ask them to move away from my group.

    “If you ran them off, wouldn’t you be thwarting their 1st amendment rights?”

    No. I wouldn’t be telling them not to protest, I would only be telling them that I cannot allow their message to reflect badly on my group. Asking someone to protest elsewhere is quite different from telling them they can’t protest at all.

    “The problem with so called conservatives like yourself is that you claim to fight for conservatives rights and for equality. Yet when U.S. Citizens protest you immediately protest their protesting by writing ignorant comments on your blog.”

    That’s not a problem, Mr. Galindo. We do fight for equality. We always have. Again, there is nothing ignorant about anything that I wrote. You are exercising your First Amendment right, and I, in turn, am exercising mine. I am allowed to protest your protesting. My writing does not stop you from protesting, does it?

    “In this case, had it been you or I, we would be sitting behind bars based on the testimony of an outstanding officer who witnessed the alleged murder and who clearly indicated it was an unwarranted shooting. Our bond would either have been in the millions or it may have been considered a non-bondable offense.”

    Not necessarily. I have seen murderers get even less bail than officer Chrisman did. Bail would have been based on a lot of different things; and yes, it is different because he’s a cop. If they keep him in jail, even in PC his life would be in constant jeopardy. Every inmate in the hole would be turning themselves inside-out to get a piece of him. It is VERY different, because you or I would not face such a thing simply because of our profession.

    “The protests not only brought a more accelerated response from the County Attorney’s office, a more thorough investigation on behalf of the Phoenix Police Dept. but it brought tremendous changes within the Phoenix Police Department.”

    I’m sorry, Mr. Galindo, but I disagree on the method. I went on a call a long time ago which I still refuse to blog about now that ended up in the news for the wrong reason, and a good cop was skewered in the press. A lot of emotion came out because of the false accusations. At least one person was demoted in the aftermath. It was discovered later that something very different had happened, and nobody cared that the discipline had been unfairly meted out. That poor guy’s life will never be the same. There are wiser ways to go about making GOOD changes without jumping to a conclusion and reacting emotionally. People get fired regularly in government agencies across the country because a few people are just trying to cover their backsides. Does that make it right? No.

    “These changes are crucial for community and police relationships to flourish.”

    Again, I disagree. It shouldn’t be up to the police to make all of the changes and keep the public happy. The public also has to understand that the police life is very different, and the media often screws things up. Rarely do you get the full story from a press release, and I promise that you’ll never get the full story from an initial police report. I am not accusing officer Virgillo of anything, nor am I accusing Chrisman. Far too often, I’ve seen good people go down because people were too busy being emotional to stop and think.

    “Finally, please stop making this about race. This has nothing to do with race.”

    As long as I see protesters flying the Mexican flag above the American flag and I hear organizers like yourself claiming that things like this are “driving a bigger wedge between law enforcement and the Latino community”, you will not convince me that it isn’t about race. If you want other people to believe that it isn’t, then ask that those who are coming to protest with you follow a few simple guidelines. It isn’t difficult, nor is it wrong.

    “Every time you are going to sit down and blog, every time you are going to speak, please take a moment to process your thoughts, place yourself in the shoes of that person you will be blogging about.”

    Mr. Galindo, if I ever go to a protest and behave as though nothing matters except what I want right now and I don’t care what anyone else around me is saying or holding up, I hope to Almighty God that someone calls me out on it.

    “(This may require objectivity you don’t possess).”

    That comment completely undid any respect you were trying to build up by being civil. Learn this now, sir – you will never get anywhere with a person if you insult them so openly. If you think I am wrong, then by all means, tell me what you think is wrong and I will respond. You aren’t going to win any hearts and minds by pretending to be wiser and talking down to people. That is openly narcissistic and quite irritating.

  7. One other thing…

    “Richard Chrisman was a rogue cop that had previously been reprimanded for having used excessive force against a “suspect” and had conspired and executed the planting of evidence on a mentally disabled woman.”

    I have seen the video, and I don’t see him using excessive force. If you’re talking about a separate incident, then please explain where you got that information, because I’ve never seen it. I have read the report, however, and as I said I did see the video. I will agree that the “joke” was in incredibly poor taste. He deserved his reprimand, and if I am not mistaken he immediately owned up and accepted the reprimand. Jack Harris himself actually said that aside from that single incident Chrisman had been a good cop and had never been accused of using excessive force.

    This blog is not a comment on whether Chrisman is guilty. There are two sides to every story. There are times when I am willing to call a person guilty before a trial has been carried out, but in some cases there are conflicting stories. In those cases, I would rather hear both sides before I make a decision on whether or not a person is guilty. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, I want to hear all sides before I judge. I would hope that, since you are so intent on judging as you would want to be judged, that you might agree with that.

  8. Mr. Maguire:

    Your post, “Mob Rule” is heavily biased. You are disadvantaged, admittedly, in your narrative, initially saying “Naturally, not all of the information coming from the media is accurate”. But you were entirely accurate when you started off by saying “I probably shouldn’t write about this, but I’m going to anyway.”

    Upon reflection, I can see that you are a man who does not follow his own advice.

    Allow me to enlighten you and your readers. After all, I was there. I attended the protests. I mean, wouldn’t it be fair to get a view from someone other than the mainstream media?

    First, while you may be afforded your own feelings, I have a difficult time believing you when you state “I feel this incident has spun almost out of control and people need to get a grip and think before they react any further.” Were you there? Do you live in Phoenix? Are you aware of the recent history of the Phoenix Police Department? Or are you just having some difficulty trying to absorb all you have recently seen in the media?

    Phoenix is at the nexus of a civil revolution. The SB1070 law (you are familiar with this recent legislation, aren’t you?) has had adverse affects on the populace and the economy, despite any contrary Republican talking point. Liberals here know full well it will not stand, just as it did not stand in Prince William County, West Virginia, in 2007. I wish not, and will not, debate SB1070, here, but to say it certainly has had adverse affects on the psyche of the people here in the state. This includes creating a negative disposition in police officers towards people of color. You may argue that this may not be the intention of law enforcement officers, or that this could be soley in the minds of some of the citizenry, but the fact remains that it is reasonable to view rogue cop Richard Chrisman as having had a chip-on-his-shoulder that quickly led to an unnecessary death.

    I am not Hispanic, but even I could see that it was unfair to initially give this cop the leniency of a mere Aggravated Assault charge when there were too many unanswered questions in the case and a man, an unarmed man, died unnecessarily.

    The framers of the US Constitution created a form of government that, by design, could resist something like Mob Rule. After all, we do not have a Direct Democracy, or “Athenian Democracy”. We elect representatives to make decisions for the mass of people they represent. Essentially, your description of the recent protests here as “Mob Rule” is unfounded, uninformed, and is simply an exaggeration.

    I would think that you and your readers would applaud the reality that a small group of people were able to successfully get the attention of the deciding governing body. A small group of protesters were able to make a salient and meaningful change for the sake of justice. This is all the community wanted . . . a sense of justice. As a citizen of Phoenix, and as an American, this was enough to get me involved in this protest. It did not matter to me whether the victim was brown, round, up or down, gay, straight, Jew or Gentile . . . I was mainly interested in seeing proper justice.

    You can read about one of the days of protest I witnessed first-hand, here: http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2010/10/13/day-7-of-protests-against-phoenix-police-officer-who-murdered-an-unarmed-latino-youth/

    As I said, I would think that you would applaud the ability of members of community, a small group, really, to band together and send a message to TPTB. Instead, your “Mob Rule” post attempts to put a racist spin on events. Your description of events (from wherever you are, feeling unsettled by what you have seen) is filled with short degrees of separation to Hispanics, Latinos, Mexico . . . as evidenced by your observations of the presence of the Mexican flag, the skin color of the protesters, Spanish words written on a sign, and hearing Spanish spoken. Most basic, you remind me of a little kid who looks at the TV and says “Aw . . . it’s just a bunch of Mexicans! Turn it off.”

    Not all the protesters were Hispanic, so you err when you write: “. . . I see a stream of Latino protesters . . . “. I suppose that’s your right to say that, but take it from me . . . I was there . . . and I saw more than just Hispanics, or brown people. Are you willing to believe me? Were you there?

    Are you calling me a “liar”?

    These were all Americans. These protesters were Americans. Do you really think any of the protesters were “undocumented”, protesting in front of a police station? Putting their residency at risk? These were Americans and this was a matter of justice . . . for Americans. Got that? But if you were unsettled to see so much Spanish written on signs, or hearing Spanish on the television reports, Keep in mind that Spanish might be the native language for which these people feel most comfortable and able to communicate. If you were so offended to view so much Spanish, can’t you see how Natavist is this view?

    You make two comparisons that really blow my mind: A comparison to Mexico, and a comparison to previous riots elsewhere. Where is the sense in criticizing the placement of the Mexican flag over the US flag? This is so petty. Rather, why don’t you see the fact that the US flag was included? Is position that important to you to try to find fault? Are you one of those “Me first! Me first!” kinda guys? I think so. Geesh! Petty. Really Petty. “Petty to the Max, Man!”

    You also use the comparative argument when you point out that one protester said “. . . .the United States is inferior to Latino nations. . . . “. Instead of actually considering the validity of that protester’s words, you engage in an Ad-Hominum attack. Well, let’s take a closer look.

    The laws of the United States of America have been based on the idea of the Rule of Law. That is, no one is above the law. This concept is extremely important in the development of our country and the treatment of our citizens. This concept, Rule of Law, was established against the monarchy of England, in which the enforcement of law was at the whim of the King and his gang. Clearly, in Phoenix, to me, and to a lot of people, it appeared that Officer Richard Chrisman was being charged with a lesser crime than what was appropriate. Moral of the story? No one is above the law. So to some of these protesters, it seemed that TPTB were not following the Rule of Law. So when someone declared that “. . . the United States is inferior to Latino nations. . . “, they were referring to the sense of fairness that is implicit in The Rule of Law. It was not the protester’s intention to promote Latino nations as better than the United States. If you read it that way, you were incorrect.

    But it was the intention of the Protesters to say “Shame on the United States (read: Maricopa County) for not being fair!” . . . and I could certainly agree. I guess the only difference between you and I, Mr. Maguire, is that throughout this incident, and all it means, you refuse to acknowledge the Shame. Well, the Maricopa County Attorney and the Phoenix Police Department certainly recognized the Shame. They acted on it, too: The Maricopa County Attorney upgraded the charge of Aggravated Assault to Murder in the Second Degree, and the Phoenix Police Department fired two supervisors and pledged to enact a program of Diversity Sensitivity.

    If country officials and law enforcement, here, could recognize the Shame, why can’t you? (Are you trying to say that they are wrong? You better watch out, Mr. Maguire; I’ll have you know a good number of those people are Republicans.

    And, excuse me for appearing insensitive, but I find no basis for your statement “Where is the outrage over Latino gang members deliberately targeting black people in Los Angeles?” Hey, Man . . . THIS IS PHOENIX . . . NOT LOS ANGELES. And it is really doubtful that anyone involved in this matter is in a gang. The man who was killed, Danny Rodriguez, lived simply with is mother, and there were plenty of families that came out to protest. (I certainly didn’t see any “colors” holding protest signs in all the days I attended this protest.)

    Regarding all the other killings (Erfle, Atkinson) that you fault the recent protest movement for seeming to ignore . . . WHERE WERE YOU? DID YOU ORGANIZE ANY PROTESTS? Mr. Maguire, I’m really sorry, but I didn’t see you at any of the staff meetings. Were you there? You weren’t? You mean you didn’t protest? Gosh, Mr. Maguire, then it doesn’t look like you have much room to criticize then, does it?

    This was not MOB RULE, Mr. Maguire. This was small group of people in the community who got together to point out that the Rule of Law was being ignored. This small protest created a strong and effective message. You should celebrate it.

    In reality, as small group got together to protest against the tyranny of an even smaller group attempting to unfairly enforce the law. This was anything but “mob rule”. Your assertion is utterly ridiculous.

    This has really been a blow, a big blow, by a small yet effective group, against tyranny. But, instead, you have attempted to take isolated parts and give them greater significance than they deserve. In other words, you tried to play the fear card and specifically portray this protest as only a Hispanic concern.

    Wrong.

    To me, it’s very clear that your attempt to play Monday Morning Quarterback was based on incomplete information, certainly an incomplete understanding of facts. Next time, take a step back and breathe. If you don’t know all of the facts, you should think before you write.

    The Lou Show

  9. “Upon reflection, I can see that you are a man who does not follow his own advice.”

    Upon reflection, I can see you don’t even read that Mel corrected the assertion that she was a man already, so dissecting the rest of your post is going to be interesting — fun nonetheless.

    “Allow me to enlighten you and your readers. After all, I was there. I attended the protests. I mean, wouldn’t it be fair to get a view from someone other than the mainstream media?”

    I guess that would depend on the type of message you wanted portrayed. As Mel has pointed out, race baiters like the other here talk about the wedges drawn between law enforcement and the latino communities and fly the Mexican flag over the American flag, yet, when Mel accurately calls them out on their race-baiting tactics, you scream that we make everything about race?

    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do that when they’re up against the ropes, too, so we here at gayconservative understand and welcome your rhetoric.

    “Do you live in Phoenix? Are you aware of the recent history of the Phoenix Police Department? Or are you just having some difficulty trying to absorb all you have recently seen in the media?”

    Again, upon reflection, I can tell you haven’t really read much. Yes, Mel lives in the Phoenix area and has a lot of knowledge on law enforcement issues in the area.

    “but the fact remains that it is reasonable to view rogue cop Richard Chrisman as having had a chip-on-his-shoulder that quickly led to an unnecessary death.”

    That’s not a fact. It’s a view and an opinion. I live in Chicago and we have just as many hispanics here. We also have just as many illegals here. (Notice how I don’t lump them together as liberals do — which is the true racist position to take). You are also preposterous to oppose SB1070 on the basis of this phony connection you are attempting to make with it and this particular police officer.

    We cannot pass laws or legislate on the basis of what you think MIGHT happen.

    Sarah Palin had 50 years of a British healthcare law to look at and the problems with the waiting lists and deaths resulting from a public health option. Yet, when she used the word “death panels” to describe the types of bureaucratic boards set up who decides whose turn it is, she’s called a liar because HR3962 did not use the words “death panels.”

    So, let me get this straight: Palin could not assume what COULD happen on the basis of fifty factual years in Britain, but you can assume what COULD happen and strike down perfectly good law which mirrors federal law?

    I suppose any police officer could use any law to discriminate. Maybe they can say they suspected the illegal was driving drunk. Maybe they can say they suspected the illegal was was doing something else….does that mean we strike down every good decent law intended to protect all legal citizens (regardless of their race) that ever exists?

    People like you will never change anyway. Anytime a police officer would enforce a law, you’d scream in opposition. Even without SB1070s enforcement, you are complaining about the way hispanics are treated anyway. So, it seems to me that your hysteria is pre-meditated and you’ve felt this way long before SB1070 ever existed, and ANY commonsense opposition to the kind of rhetoric you spew on that matter is labeled by you as “Republican talking points.”

    There are more Americans (hispanics included) that agree with law and order than there are of you who portray it as a floodgate to racism and unequal treatment. That is why the Democrats are about to suffer a bloodbath in two weeks.

    And as you yap on to Mel, someone with a very informed opinion on the matter, it is clear, your entire post was based on opinion and perception, NOT FACT.

    Before you accuse people of misconstruing facts, it might be a wise idea to learn what a fact is.

  10. BTW “Lou Show” –

    I am certain you are as excited as I am about Susanna Martinez in NM.

    Not only is she hispanic, she’s a woman!

  11. Steve just did a fantastic job, but I have a few things to say…

    “Upon reflection, I can see that you are a man who does not follow his own advice.”

    Actually, YOU are the type of person who fails to follow their own advice. Mr. Galindo, just yesterday, climbed on me for supposedly not doing my homework. Neither of you have done yours. If you read the bios of all five writers on this blog, when you reach mine you will find that I am a woman. I am not transgendered. I like my gender just fine the way it is and I am offended when someone mistakes it multiple times.

    “Were you there? Do you live in Phoenix? Are you aware of the recent history of the Phoenix Police Department?”

    As a matter of fact, yes, I do. I will not say how, but I know quite a hell of a lot more than you do about the recent “history” than you do.

    “Phoenix is at the nexus of a civil revolution.”

    If that’s what you prefer to call it, go right ahead. There is nothing wrong with SB 1070 except what has been assumed by you and other protesters. Since you don’t wish to debate that here, I will continue.

    “…the fact remains that it is reasonable to view rogue cop Richard Chrisman as having had a chip-on-his-shoulder that quickly led to an unnecessary death.”

    No, it isn’t. What would be reasonable would be waiting until the whole story is told, not just one side. As I said to Mr. Galindo, while there are some occasions on which it is acceptable to conclude a person’s guilt before trial in the public arena, there are others where it is entirely inappropriate.

    “I am not Hispanic, but even I could see that it was unfair to initially give this cop the leniency of a mere Aggravated Assault charge when there were too many unanswered questions in the case and a man, an unarmed man, died unnecessarily.”

    Why should your race have anything to do with what you can or cannot see? Here’s what I see: two cops on the scene gave two differing reports. Detectives felt the need to arrest one of the officers for the claims of the other, but they didn’t have sufficient evidence (or permission from the DA) to arrest him for murder. So, they arrested him for what they could. They didn’t do THAT right away, either. They didn’t arrest him until later in the day. The unanswered questions were why they didn’t charge him immediately with murder. So, in effect, you essentially answered your own question.

    “Essentially, your description of the recent protests here as “Mob Rule” is unfounded, uninformed, and is simply an exaggeration.”

    No, the description isn’t an exaggeration. These protests and your demands are the essence of mob rule. By protesting and announcing you will not give up until the police both charge Chrisman with murder AND re-arrest him, you are engaging in the most elementary form of mob rule.

    “A small group of protesters were able to make a salient and meaningful change for the sake of justice. This is all the community wanted . . . a sense of justice.”

    I have to ask…what is it you wanted? Actual justice, or a SENSE of justice? The two are quite different. Change is not necessarily a good thing, and if you’d read my response to Mr. Galindo you would have known what my stance is on that issue. I have, more than once, seen good people lose their jobs because public outrage over an incident being portrayed in the press was at fever-pitch and the people in power wanted to cover their hides. Before you all pat yourselves on the back, ask yourselves – why was anybody fired or demoted in this episode? Was it because they couldn’t control a man whom you have both clearly described as a “rogue”, or because certain commanders just want to show that they’re doing something? I have never, EVER believed that to be a plausible course of action, yet it continues to occur. That is something that you and your friends fail to understand.

    “Instead, your “Mob Rule” post attempts to put a racist spin on events.”

    I am not the one putting a racist spin on events. The link you provided specifically identified the victim as a “Latino youth” (in fact, he wasn’t a youth, he was a grown man with responsibilities of his own). Those taking part in your protest were carrying the same signs, the same flags, and saying the same things that they all did during the SB 1070 protests. If you wish to see where the racism is coming from, look no further than your own mirror.

    “Most basic, you remind me of a little kid who looks at the TV and says ‘Aw . . . it’s just a bunch of Mexicans! Turn it off.’ ”

    If that were the case, I wouldn’t have felt it necessary to write about what I’d seen. None of us here at gayconservative.org are racists. It does, however, irritate each and every one of us when a group – and many do it, not just Latinos – tries in subliminal ways to pin an incident on race.

    “Not all the protesters were Hispanic, so you err when you write: “. . . I see a stream of Latino protesters . . . “.”

    I actually didn’t err. Yes, I did see the protest, and I saw a handful of non-Latinos there – but for the most part, they were Latinos. It certainly didn’t help when protest organizers told the press they felt this issue was driving a bigger wedge between law enforcement and the Latino community.

    “Are you calling me a “liar”?”

    Since this is the first time I have responded to you, I could not have called you a liar. I will, however, call you a spin doctor.

    “But if you were unsettled to see so much Spanish written on signs, or hearing Spanish on the television reports, Keep in mind that Spanish might be the native language for which these people feel most comfortable and able to communicate.”

    If they were all American citizens, then fantastic. You still haven’t answered as to why someone was carrying a HUGE Mexican flag flying over the American flag. If what you say is accurate, then why was that necessary? It is not just the Spanish on the signs or the Spanish being spoken; it is the combination of all factors.

    “Where is the sense in criticizing the placement of the Mexican flag over the US flag? This is so petty.”

    No, it isn’t, and the fact that you fail to see why it bothers me tells me just how juvenile you are. In many protests across the country on behalf of amnesty for illegals, the Mexican flag is flown. It is deliberately flown above the American flag to show that they hold Mexico above the US. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of pride in being an American, particularly on my own country’s soil. If Mexico is where your heart is, then go back. If you truly love America and you are proud to be an American, then the Stars and Stripes should ALWAYS be first. It is well-known that in flag etiquette, no flag is to ever be flown above the American flag. It is extremely offensive. There’s nothing petty about it. Many of those who fly the Mexican and American flags that way agree with a movement that calls for Aztlan – the Southwestern States – to be given back to Mexico. There’s nothing petty about it.

    “Instead of actually considering the validity of that protester’s words, you engage in an Ad-Hominum attack.”

    First of all, it’s AD HOMINEM (no hyphen, it’s Latin). The United States is NOT inferior to the laws in Latino nations. Take a look at Mexico. The reason that the cartels thrive there is because politicians are so corrupt that they barter deals with the heads of the cartels to give them unfettered access to certain areas. They pay those politicians and promise safety for their families. If that happened here, that politician would be in prison. Plus, I never said that somebody said that because nobody actually did; you need to actually read my entire post again.

    “Clearly, in Phoenix, to me, and to a lot of people, it appeared that Officer Richard Chrisman was being charged with a lesser crime than what was appropriate.”

    If someone had actually used those words, that fact would not be enough for me to consider them valid in the slightest. Justice is not based on a “sense of fairness” as you call it. The law is not based on feelings at all. It is based on facts, evidence, what can be proven – all of the things necessary to bring proper charges. I’ve already answered that question, though.

    “I guess the only difference between you and I, Mr. Maguire, is that throughout this incident, and all it means, you refuse to acknowledge the Shame.”

    There are quite a few differences between you and I that you fail to acknowledge. First of all, I’m not making assumptions based on a cursory glance at something (and you are STILL calling me a man). Second, you seem to think that life is fair. If everything were fair, then our prison system – which I used to work in as an officer – would not be so easy on criminals. They would not get free legal counsel, paid for by the taxpayers, to sue the state when they discover that the contraband weapons that were confiscated from their cells are being used in training sessions. Third, if everything were fair, good people would not end up getting demoted or fired by commanders practicing the rule of CYA just to make emotionally-hyped mobs like yours go away. Since you have no clue at all what “diversity sensitivity” entails, I’ll just giggle at that remark.

    “Are you trying to say that they are wrong? You better watch out, Mr. Maguire; I’ll have you know a good number of those people are Republicans.”

    Yes, I am saying they’re wrong, and I don’t give a damn what party they belong to. There are plenty of Republicans I have no trouble taking to task. I have done it frequently here. I am not nearly as interested in party affiliation as I am in whether a person is truly conservative or a bleeding-heart liberal.

    “Hey, Man . . . THIS IS PHOENIX . . . NOT LOS ANGELES.”

    Wow. I didn’t know that. Thank you so much for pointing that out to me (Captain Obvious…to the rescue!). I’m curious to know what you had to say about people in other states protesting against SB 1070. I’ve seen your website, with the “teabagger” comments (since it is readily apparent that you don’t read things in their entirety, I’ll tell you as well that I do not engage in protests myself and I am not a Tea Party protester), so I can imagine that you were among those in the liberal press who hailed anti-Arizona protesters in other states meddling in our business. Unless you can prove that you took issue with that, then I’m going to point something out to you: any time any white person is accused of racism, once the press picks the story up that person is automatically guilty. That happened this year to a Phoenix cop who actually has never been a racist and not one person ever apologized to him for nearly ruining his entire life with those accusations. Yet when racism is perpetrated by other races, nothing is said about it. It happens all the time. I bring up the racism in Los Angeles because everyone is willing to get angry with white people when they are accused of racism, regardless of what really happened (Dog the Bounty Hunter, anyone?). When some other group engages in racism, though, nobody cares. How does that work?

    “Regarding all the other killings (Erfle, Atkinson) that you fault the recent protest movement for seeming to ignore . . . WHERE WERE YOU? DID YOU ORGANIZE ANY PROTESTS?”

    Unlike you, my pen – my knowledge, my education, my logic – are my protest. I do not attend any protest as an engaged protester. EVER. I will tell you as I told Mr. Galindo: there are wiser ways to go about affecting change without making a scene and demanding things that should not happen. Things always go too far when a government agency is trying to placate the public over an overcharged emotional issue, and this one is no different. The protest HAS ignored some of these deaths. I protested those deaths the way I always do – with words. I write. You and Mr. Galindo are protesters. If you are going to raise hell about one form of injustice, then raise hell about all of them or you will be dismissed offhand by those who hear you.

    “This small protest created a strong and effective message. You should celebrate it.”

    I refuse to celebrate reactionary measures meant for little more than making you happy.

    “In reality, as small group got together to protest against the tyranny of an even smaller group attempting to unfairly enforce the law. This was anything but “mob rule”. Your assertion is utterly ridiculous.”

    In reality, a small group got together to put pressure on public officials whom they know rely heavily on public opinion to force said public officials to take action they had likely already planned to take. I very seriously doubt that Chrisman would have gotten off without your protests, and it is narcissistic to believe otherwise. Your assertion that the Phoenix Police Department would never carry out the law on one of their own after a thorough investigation is what is truly ludicrous, but I doubt you’ll spare yourself the pat on your own back for what you did. By the way…if this isn’t a racial matter to you or the other protesters, then “diversity sensitivity” should not be needed.

    Get it?

  12. Mel:

    I regret writing to you. It was a waste of my time. You seem to have your mind well set, immovable, inflexible. I am now convinced that you don’t take to new information very well, you are resistant. I’d say you’ve “jumped the shark”. I predict that there may come a day when you have an epiphany that will enable you to think of the welfare of all people, not just yourself.

    I’m also sure you will try to pick apart this post for inaccuracies, inconsistencies, etc . . . but, really, this has simply been a personal message meant for you.

    Good luck.

    The Lou Show

  13. Lou,

    You’re always welcome to comment here. But, I warn you, Mel is always very well-prepared on these issues and she knows what she’s talking about as evidenced in her original post here as well as her replies to the both of you.

  14. “This week, Danny Rodriguez’s mother called police when Danny became angry and violent.”

    As I’ve said before a problem that was never a matter for the police sadly became one because Danny Rodriguez’s mother failed to take care of her family business. Her son became angry? So what? Getting angry is not a crime. He became violent? Perhaps if she taught her son to respect his parents then this whole issue would be moot.

    You don’t take your family troubles and put them in the street. Danny Rodriguez is dead and his mother bears the blame for that. The woman needed to take care of her business, she did not, and she should have endured the wrath of her son for her own failings. That’s how life works.

  15. Moreover; Lou, I can almost guarantee that you are a left-wing radical and you went to the protest with a pre-meditated opinion, the same one you left it with.

    Your post was an attempt to persuade on the basis of that stuck-in-the-box extremism.

  16. Well, Lou, I would pick apart your comment for inaccuracies, but it would be lost on you. I will tell you that you used the wrong analogy.

    I had to learn a lesson a few years ago that did, in fact, come as an epiphany to me. It’s a lesson you could stand to learn. The fact that I didn’t give you the response you hoped for does not mean I was absolutely wrong, nor does it mean that responding to my missive was a waste of time or that you are 100% correct. I used to think the same way you do. Any person who disagreed with me immediately earned my utter disdain and contempt. I would come out and insult any person who got under my skin merely by not agreeing with my opinion.

    People are going to disagree with you. You need to go into a situation – regardless of how you feel about it – with the understanding that you may very well be wrong in your assessment. If you go over your own comment, you’ll see that you were actually wrong on a couple of concrete things. I could very well be wrong in my assessment of the incident itself; that is why I have chosen to reserve judgment until I hear all sides of the story, not just one. I also happen to know a couple of things that nobody else knows, hence my reticence to call Chrisman a murderer or Virgillo a liar.

    You will find that you earn a hell of a lot of respect from the people around you (even those who disagree with you) by practicing a few simple rules. First of all, think first, react later. Don’t get caught up in the emotion. Second, be confident that you know what you’re talking about, but not so much so that you’re an insufferable know-it-all. Finally, when proven wrong, own up. Be willing to change your perspective (not necessarily your opinion) when you hear something different.

    I have to say, too, if you could’ve seen where I was at three o’clock this morning, you probably would have soiled yourself. The fact that I disagree with you on a singular issue does not mean that I don’t have the welfare of others in mind.

  17. , the perfect game with understandably a number of flaws, or perhaps a waste
    of your time and money. Today our group advertises the arrival of Hay Day
    Diamonds free Cheats Free Download, working and overhauled for the Ipad,
    Iphone, and Ipod gadgets. Write down just one action
    you happen to be willing to consider everyday for consecutive 1 month without fail.

  18. I do not know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everyone else experiencing problems with your website.
    It looks like some of the text on your posts are running off
    the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know
    if this is happening to them as well? This may be a problem with my browser because I’ve
    had this happen before. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s