Thursday, June 18, 2015

This is an article I wrote 25 years ago - think about it a quarter of a century ago I wrote this. What has changed?

I point out the disparate treatment by media of black-on-white crime,  even when racism was the stated motive, is not really reported with the same prominence and frequency as  white-on-black crime where the media normally applies a racist motive. 

BTW I also experienced this as a police officer working racial details. Crimes committed by whites against blacks were reported as hate crimes whereas crimes by blacks against whites were not reported as such. 

Why, I would ask myself?

My thesis is that this treatment is inherently racist. Because the media - and the city government -  treat crimes by blacks as some normal event but when a white commits a crime it must be because of racism. 

I point out that black criminals and white criminals are just that - criminals. There is no difference - especially to the victims.

As if to prove my point here is a news item about a black man who killed four whites because they were white. This tragedy occurred in 2013 with barely a mention by the media. There was no great outcry in this incident, indeed who knew about it.

Monday, June 15, 2015

No Room for Social Conservatives?

As I have been saying repeatedly during these past several months, there is no room for social conservatives in the public square. People who believe in opposing abortion; who believe that sobriety checkpoints are legal; who believe that criminals belong in prison; who believe drugs should not be legalized, are being phased out of conservative institutions and/or political parties.

This article in the libertarian Reason magazine ( a misnomer if ever there were one), references Linette Lopez's Business Insider article. They both illustrate my point. 

Here is an excerpt from the Business Insider piece:

"Many on Wall Street loved (Romney's) private-equity/business background to be sure. They liked his ideas on foreign policy, even, but they weren't crazy about his sudden lurch to the right on issues like abortion. (Emphasis added)

Here is an excerpt from Gillespie's Reason article:

"add to that (Michael Bloomberg's) patently stupid comments against pot legalization."

(Here is a link to the Reason piece:

(Here is a link to the Business Insider piece:

The same people who want to eliminate civil forfeiture want to make all drugs legal and  also make abortion-on-demand legal. I guess if you believe Potterville or Caligula's Court are wonderful places to live than you are not concerned by this shift. But I think most of us understand that a libertine world only benefits a few - and destroys many. 

Now libertarians deny being libertine. They say they believe only in a world where the government does not impose morality. Libertarians are fond of saying morality is an individual thing and cannot be legislated. 

I, as a social conservative, believe there are immoral acts that the government must prohibit. Slavery immediately comes to mind as one immorality that must be prohibited by law.

Do libertarians believe there should be no laws against slavery? 

Libertarianism has some valid points to make. But they are socially conservative points such as prohibiting slavery. Their rationale for legalizing drugs, prostitution, and abortion-on-demand has nothing to do with morality or limited government. It has everything to do with their morality. Do not be fooled by them.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Insights about policing from my novel A Sense of Duty

Here are some more insights about police work in the form of excerpts from my 2006 novel, "A Sense of Duty." . 

Bestselling author, W.E.B. Griffin, said this about the novel, " ...a compelling saga of how tough choices affect the lives of the good and the bad and those around them---a fascinating glimpse inside the closed world of law enforcement." 

Now I realize this is self-serving. But my reason for sharing these scenes is to attempt to counter the misinformation about policing that pervades the public discourse. Each of these three excerpts addresses a contemporary controversy. I trust you will find them enlightening:

1-This first talks about what the media and critics fail to realize regarding police - in this scene the novel's protagonist, Phila. police officer Mike Carr, is talking to his friend Tom (emphasis added):

" Tom, listen. Nobody calls the police when things are going fine, " explained Carr. "The only time the cops are called is when there is a problem. Police officers make judgments in a fraction of a second.-a judgment that will have serious consequences. A judgment that will be criticized by people who have the luxury of deliberation." 
2- This next one concerns public perceptions of police. They usually fall into two categories as illustrated here. Carr is talking with a colleague, a veteran police officer (emphasis added): 

"Don' t laugh. The public doesn't understand what goes on. The public either thinks you're a hero or a bum. They put you on a pedestal or they put you in the toilet. There's no happy medium. And your friends and family look at you the same way. " 

3-This last excerpt addresses the idea that shooting to wound rather than to kill is a choice in a deadly force circumstance (again emphasis added).

"Carr unsnapped his holster and took out his revolver. The pistol-range instructor's words echoed in his memory: if you have to shoot, shoot for the torso and empty your revolver."
"The advice makes sense. The belief that one can easily shoot a gun from a person's hand is a myth. The Lone Ranger Syndrome, Carr called it.  "
It is my fervent desire that by sharing these excerpts - and perhaps more in the future- you will be more empathetic to policing. The current reportage and punditry about law enforcement - much of which is driven by ideology rather than informed thought - is deplorable. The sciolism is rampant.

I welcome your comments. 


Michael P. Tremoglie

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Hysteria About Policing is like Animal Farm. The Critics Are Worse Than Those They Criticize by Michael P. Tremoglie

This is an excerpt from my 2006 novel "A Sense of Duty." Keep this in mind when there are police use of force controversies. The novel's protagonist, Phila. police officer Mike Carr, is talking to his friend:

" Tom, listen. Nobody calls the police when things are going fine, " explained Carr. "The only time the cops are called is when there is a problem. Police officers make judgments in a fraction of a second.-a judgment that will have serious consequences. A judgment that will be criticized by people who have the luxury of deliberation." 

This is the case in every instance of police use of force from the least to the greatest i.e. deadly force! As I wrote then, nobody call the cops when there is no problem, or threat, or danger. They are called in volatile situations or in emergencies.

So the first question - that is never asked by the media - is why were the police called. As we see now in Baltimore the police were called by the very person who is now condemning them, state attorney Marilyn Mosby.  How come no one asked this initially before condemning the officers?

Regarding this incident in McKinney, there are several issues not mentioned by media, pundits, and the usual cop bashers - and even other police because we are not monolithic. These are:

  • Why is it that no one has mentioned that nothing happened to the boys who were told to sit down and did sit down? One clearly sees this on the video. So anyone that complied with the officer's attempt to restore order was not subject to force.

  • Teenagers? How many of you have tried to restrain or apprehend a teenager who is stronger, more flexible, and often bigger? These teenagers were fighting adults. They started the fight by crashing the party  did they not?

Now I do not condone the McKinney officer pulling out his gun. But if he did it because the one's kid hand went behind his back (again this is clearly seen in the video - the one kid I think with a blue shirt) then maybe, maybe  I could understand it. I do not think I would have but he reacted differently. 

 This pontificating, this self-righteous judgmentalizing is absurd. Police are fallible.  There are some who are evil, brutal, and corrupt. I know more than most because I worked with them. Those need to be punished. But as we have seen there is a lynchmob mentality coming from the left and left-leaning libertarians that is disgraceful and unconscionable.

This hysteria - by Cato, Reason magazine, the ACLU, the NAACP and all the other usual suspects - about policing is deleterious to public safety. Because the critics will do far worse than anything those they criticize will do.  Their attitude is reminiscent of the pigs in Animal Farm.

Blanket condemnations and snap judgments of police actions are no different than the racist accusations of blacks as born criminals. 

Monday, June 8, 2015

Conservative Media and Think Tanks Too Timid to Mention Racial Hate Crimes by African-Americans

Neither Bill O'Reilly nor Megan Kelly at Fox News who were made aware of this incident via twitter ( I was told) bothered to report about these racially motivated attacks of whites by blacks in S. Phila. CNN and MSNBC were also, purportedly, made aware of this and also did nothing.

What is even worse is that the police have not bothered to act.
The following is from the local ABC news affiliate:

Here is an excerpt:

"Another woman who also did not want to be identified says the women attacked her inside her home calling her racial epithets when she tried to intervene.

"Next thing I know, I hear, 'white [expletive] we're gonna [expletive] you up!'" the woman said. "Next thing I know they're inside spitting at me, pounding at my face, beating me."

The victims further claim responding officers from the 3rd district did not even take a report or make any arrests."

So it seems conservative media are joining conservative think tanks in being too timid to cite racist acts by African-Americans that go unreported by police. Kudos to the local ABC affiliate even though they seemed to have bent over backwards to avoid stating the possibility of racial hate crimes committed by African-Americans.