Ferguson - Sane Atheist Voices

[mralstoner]

As an Australian, I find the whole Ferguson shebang quite disturbing for reasons (1) it seems bleedingly obvious that Michael Brown attacked the police officer and thus (2) it is really disturbing that so many blacks seem not to care one iota about facts but are merely twisting this case into their victim mentality and justification for rioting (3) the majority of atheist blogs that I read are likewise ready to take up arms against the police and some of them are literally shaking with rage (4) what's really disturbing is the "justification" for such violence goes right to the top i.e. Obama - who gave lip service to the rule of law while his heart was with the rioters.

So.... in the face of overwhelming support for the rioters/protesters, from blacks and atheists, my question is: are there any sane atheist voices out there speaking in favour of the police, and in favour of the rule of law?

I don't want this thread to degenerate into another Ferguson debate because, quite frankly, I find the anti-police views quite seriously insane. Completely bonkers. So, I'm not here to discuss the case.

Heather MacDonald is one sane atheist voice on Ferguson. But are there any others out there?

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1125hm.html
HEATHER MAC DONALD
Obama’s Ferguson Sellout
The president’s irresponsible statements will make a bad situation worse.
25 November 2014

President Obama betrayed the nation last night. Even as he went on national television to respond to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August, the vicious violence that would destroy businesses and livelihoods over the next several hours was underway. Obama had one job and one job only last night: to defend the workings of the criminal-justice system and the rule of law. Instead, he turned his talk into a primer on police racism and criminal-justice bias. In so doing, he perverted his role as the leader of all Americans and as the country’s most visible symbol of the primacy of the law.

Obama gestured wanly toward the need to respect the grand jury’s decision and to protest peacefully. “We are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make,” he said. But his tone of voice and body language unmistakably conveyed his disagreement, if not disgust, with that decision. “There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction,” he said. Understandable, so long as one ignores the evidence presented to the grand jury. The testimony of a half-dozen black observers at the scene demolished the early incendiary reports that Wilson attacked Brown in cold blood and shot Brown in his back when his hands were up. Those early witnesses who had claimed gratuitous brutality on Wilson’s part contradicted themselves and were in turn contradicted by the physical evidence and by other witnesses, who corroborated Wilson’s testimony that Brown had attacked him and had tried to grab his gun. (Minutes before, the nearly 300-pound Brown had thuggishly robbed a shopkeeper of a box of cigars; Wilson had received a report of that robbery and a description of Brown before stopping him.) Obama should have briefly reiterated the grounds for not indicting Wilson and applauded the decision as the product of a scrupulously thorough and fair process. He should have praised the jurors for their service and courage in following the evidence where it led them. And he should have concluded by noting that there is no fairer criminal justice system in the world than the one we have in the United States.

Instead, Obama reprimanded local police officers in advance for their presumed overreaction to the protests....

Obama left no doubt that he believed the narrative of the mainstream media and race activists about Ferguson. That narrative held that the shooting of Brown was a symbol of nationwide police misbehavior and that the August riots were an “understandable” reaction to widespread societal injustice. “The situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.” This distrust is justified, in Obama’s view. He reinvoked the “diversity” bromide about the racial composition of police forces, implying that white officers cannot fairly police black communities. In fact, some of the most criticized law-enforcement bodies in recent years have been majority black.

“We have made enormous progress in race relations,” Obama conceded. “But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up. . . . The law too often feels like it’s being applied in a discriminatory fashion . . . these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down.” To claim that the laws are applied in a discriminatory fashion is a calumny, unsupported by evidence. For the president of the United States to put his imprimatur on such propaganda is bad enough; to do so following a verdict in so incendiary a case is grossly irresponsible. But such partiality follows the pattern of this administration in Ferguson and elsewhere, with Attorney General Eric Holder prematurely declaring the Ferguson police force in need of wholesale change and President Obama invoking Ferguson at the United Nations as a manifestation of America’s ethnic strife...

Obama couldn’t have stopped the violence last night with his address to the nation. But in casting his lot with those who speciously impugn our criminal-justice system, he has increased the likelihood of more such violence in the future.

Heather Mac Donald discusses her piece: Proactive Policing Is Not 'Racial Profiling'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r96ZtIBCh4

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you wanted to post this but don't want to hear other views ... got it.

[mralstoner]

So you wanted to post this but don't want to hear other views ... got it.

Yep, you got it.

The atheist blogs that I read are overwhelming in support of the rioters/protesters, so I'm asking are there any pro-police atheist voices out there?

[Sterben]

The direct evidence that was presented to us from sources was in defense of Darren and against Michael Brown, although, a skinny teenager should of posed no threat to the officers life. He was just incompetent& inexperienced, Michael Brown did attack the officer but, Darren reacted just like anyone else would of with the evidence at hand. Michael could of been on high on meth, crack cocaine, or any other substance. Using basic statics, young men in there 20's and younger it is quite common for them to use drugs. I tried these substances when I was younger and it does give you a sense of power. Darren did respond this situation wrongful I think but, as a young police officer he did what most rational people would do when attacked. The media and the other groups just wanted ratings, so they blew up an racial issue which is popular to do so by the media. His death was wrongful yes but, Darren did not commit murder directly; it was more self-defense. It's not about whether a crime was committed or not. it's an issue of a racial indent gone wrong and blame is trying to put on someone; Michael Brown was a dumb-ass that's all. I'm either pro-police or pro-protesters, just a neutral party who thinks there should a be " Michael Brown is a dumb-ass side of the arguments"

[KUSA]

The atheist blogs that I read are overwhelming in support of the rioters/protesters, so I'm asking are there any pro-police atheist voices out there?

I'm not pro-police but I'm not pro thug/criminal either. With that said I think Brown dug his own grave.

[Mudhammam]

I'm asking are there any pro-police atheist voices out there?

... Because unless you support a militarized and overly aggressive police force gunning down unarmed civilians, you cannot be "pro-police"?

Btw, has anyone heard from the typically vocal "pro-lifers" during all of this recent madness?

[Minimalist]

Proactive Policing Is Not 'Racial Profiling'

Bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/...frisk.html

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the stop-and-frisk practices of the New York Police Department in recent years violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers by targeting young minority men for stops.