American crime: black on black; black on white

Consider the 4^th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This was a promise to ratifiers that the then-fledgling federal government would not repeat the no-knock searches practiced to enforce the Stamp Act.  Arguably, prior to the 11^th amendment, individuals could sue their state for similar violations committed by officials based on this language.  (Notice the 1^st amendment is addressed specifically to the federal congress.  The 4^th amendment protects people.  As we all know, the meaning attributed to “people” is very important here, but I digress.)

Did it matter whether the individual(s) who violated the security of someone’s person was a British Soldier or a Federal Marshal?  No.  The security was violated and that was offensive.

In its letter, the 4^th amendment clearly limits searches conducted by federal officials.  Absent any specific legislation, individuals could sue over searches that violated this language.

Consider the highlighted phrases from the 4^th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If it doesn’t matter whether the individual(s) who violated the security of someone’s person was a British Soldier or a Federal Marshal, does it change anything if the perpetrator happens to be a private citizen not acting in any official capacity?  No.  If the security is violated, that is offensive.

Can the acts committed against the Coon youth that day be seen as violating his personal security?  And not just violating his personal security, violating his personal security at his home. 

It just so happens that if the perpetrator is not a federal official, legislation has to be in place before the violation occurs to provide a basis for criminal charges.  I recently listened to Marc Victor’s talk at a gun show.  I was amazed at what “assault” is.  Surely, based on what I heard him say about assault in the context of gun display, assault laws apply to what happened to the adolescent Coon boy.

In the steps of due process, the plaintiff can opt out at any point.  Prosecutors can press on against the plaintiff’s wishes, but often as not, observe them.

Absent the Coon’s wish to opt out, this should proceed at least to a Grand Jury.

Who knows?

But all that is formal justice.  Formal justice accomplishes the function of containment.  It keeps the conflict limited to those initially involved.  It is supposed to prevent the conflict from spilling out among the populace and lead to a convulsion within.  It does not render right that which went wrong.

What happened at the Coon house that day was wrong and can never be rendered right.

Another part of formal justice is the SCOTUS doctrine of “incorporation”, where they impose restrictions of the federal constitution upon the states.  This is a mixed blessing at best.  But it’s phony baloney.  And it’s not phony baloney because of the concept.  It is phony baloney because of the source. 

The law is not merely consent of the governed, the law is the will of the people.  The will of the people cannot be imposed upon them.  The people must choose the right path.  I choose therefore I am.  Not somebody (literally or figuratively) held a gun to my head and made me say something, or do something, and I said it or did it - therfore I am. 

I choose, therefore I am.

To make a choice, someone must know the option exists and that it is viable.  The will of Coon’s attackers is demonstrated by their actions.  Have they ever heard of non-initiation of force?  Apparently not.

My arguments here concerning the spirit of the constitution and personal incorporation have no legal weight.  Zero.  Nada.  And there is considerable historical fact in support of Powell’s frequent assertion to the effect that the constitution is a con.

Even so, that con included promises enticing enough to secure its ratification.  Some of those promises were retracted within 3 years of the passage of the Bill of Rights, in the 11^th amendment.

Still, even if the framers and their successors won’t keep those promises to us, We the People can keep them ourselves �" for ourselves and for one another.

Consider the excerpt from Paine I cited a few days ago:

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

It is well and good that the promise exists in the 4^th amendment.  But if all it amounts to is “ink stains dried up on some line” (with apologies to Glen Campbell), it has no effect whatsoever.  And if all it amounts to is some thunderous utterance, the echoes of which have long since died out, from some bench in some high court somewhere, it also is of no effect.  To have effect, the ideas must live and abide in the hearts and minds of  the people.

If ignorance is part of the problem, education is part of the solution.

DC Treybil

If this topic truly interests you, and you want to do a little research, consider the American Renaissance magazine, online, if you like, at http://amren.com/.

Inside AM you can find books, articles and studies that show that:

1. Black on black crime is worse than white on black;

2. Black on black crime is way worse than white on white crime;

3. Black on white crime is way worse than white on white or white on black crime;

The studies are not usually based on count. Rather, they are based on percentages. The reason for this is that whites in America outnumber blacks, so direct statistic analysis would be an incorrect evaluation. However, even in direct statistics, not based on percentages, some kinds of black crime are still greater than white crime of the same kind.

What is interesting to note is, most of the racism stuff in America is a furtherance of black-against-everybody crime, although some of it is big business and big Government taking advantage of the situation.

There are also books and studies that show that, on the average, African blacks in Africa - those that do not have any European ancestors - have an IQ that is about 15 points lower than white Europeans or Americans that do not have any black ancestors.

As a side-note, the average IQ of native Southeast Asians is about 10 points greater than white Europeans or white Americans.