Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Duval Patrick: 'Without knowing all the facts, of course I wanted an indictment' - Carol Brown

by Carol Brown

Deval Patrick was on Meet the Press this week-end. When asked about the Grand Jury decision he said: “Without knowing all the facts, of course I wanted an indictment.”

Wow. Just, wow.

Patrick summed up in one short sentence exactly what is wrong with progressive “thinking” and attitudes. He admitted that he wanted a particular outcome, even in the face of not knowing all the facts.

But almost as egregious as that was his assertion that we don’t know all the facts. Because, hello? Yes we do!

What does he think the Grand Jury was poring over these past several months? What does he think their decision was based on? Does he not realize the Grand Jury was painstakingly separating fact from fiction in order to render a just verdict?

Not satisfied with his utterly absurd and inflammatory statement, Patrick had more nonsense to spew when he said a trial “would be good for the community.”

So now it’s reasonable to suggest that we throw our criminal justice system out the window so we can have theatre in the form of an unwarranted trial for the good of “the community?”

Here’s the deal: While there are outside agitators fueling riots in Ferguson and around the country, we have another type of outside agitator ginning things up in their own way. The latter group wears expensive suits, appears on major network panels and talk shows, and speak as if their words are reasonable and innocent. When they’re not.

I hold Deval Patrick as accountable as any communist or anarchist for the violence that is unfolding before our eyes, because he and Sharpton and Farrakhan and Holder and Obama and all the rest are fanning the flames with words that send powerful messages. In the case of Patrick’s recent comments, he legitimized the idea that nothing short of an indictment would be acceptable. He suggested that due process is irrelevant. He rendered normal and acceptable that facts are minor details and that one’s feelings and desires supersede them.

Oh, and by the way Gov. Patrick and others of your ilk: An “unarmed” person can still exert lethal force. And they do. And not infrequently. So please, I beg you, stop peddling the image of Michael Brown as some poor, helpless, innocent little victim when in reality he was using his  body in a way as powerful as any gun. And to make sure he maintained the upper hand (literally), he also attempted to shoot (even while the officer was trying to maintain his own grip on his weapon) as well as steal Officer Wilson’s gun to use against the officer. Just what exactly would you suggest an officer (or anyone for that matter) do differently in such a situation?

What’s that? I’m not sure I heard you right. Did you say they should not try to defend themselves? Did you say the outcome would have been more acceptable if Darren Wilson had died instead of Michael Brown? That that would have proved the police do not abuse their power?

I see.

Thomas Lifson adds: I do not know the facts, but maybe Gov. Patrick ought to be put on trial for political corruption, just to clear up the matter?

Carol Brown


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment