Wednesday, June 10, 2015

The McKinney Pool Incident

Image result for eric casebolt

When I first saw the video of the incident in McKinney, Texas (a suburb of Dallas), my first impression was that the one cop who is at the center of the storm, Cpl Eric Casebolt, had indeed lost his cool. Questions were raised as to what had happened before the camera was turned on. Accounts of witnesses stressed that these young kids were out of control and had basically invaded a pool party for the local residents. There was a DJ who showed up to play loud and offensive hip hop music with kids within earshot, kids were climbing over the fence, getting in confrontations with adults in the pool, and when the first cops arrived, orders to disperse were being ignored.

There was also the issue of Cpl Casebolt drawing his weapon for a few seconds. As Mark Fuhrman stated on Fox News, it seemed inappropriate. Sean Hannity correctly pointed out that as the officer was busy subduing a girl on the ground, two young men came up from behind to confront him. That is when he drew his gun, kept it pointed downward, and the two youths ran off. He then put it back in his holster.

Given the above could there be two asides to the story? Sure.

Today, in the wake of the officer's resignation, his attorney made a statement to the media and described her client's responses to two suicide calls immediately before the case in question. In one, a man shot himself to death in view of his family. In the second, Casebolt talked a girl out of jumping from the roof of her parents' house. By the time he arrived at the pool incident, he was not in a great frame of mind. In his own statement of regret and apology, he admitted that he had had lost his cool. While some of the youths were verbally abusive, he responded in kind. Should he have been wrestling that (as it turns out) 14-year-old girl to the ground and handcuffing her? I don't know, but I have not seen what the girl did in the first place.

So where do we go from here? I don't know how they are going to sort out the charges with the kids. As of now I understand only one adult was charged and that charge has been dismissed.  Of more concern is whether Casebolt will be charged. I am biased to be sure, but I hope not. He has already lost enough.


elwood p suggins said...

Hard to say if the gun thing was justified or not, I realize these are allegedly "teens", but an 18-year old (sometimes younger) is both a teen and an adult. Those two little dudes were certainly "signifying", both verbally and with body language, and while it may not have happened in McKinney, TX (yet, that is), kids (primarily black ones) no older than these in inner cities routinely shoot/kill other kids (primarily black ones), so why not a cop??

In the aftermath, (black) Dallas pastor and executive director of Justice Seekers Texas, a "civil rights" organization, the Rev. Ronald Wright, had this to say:
"And this is setting the stage -- and [Texas] just passed the open weapons law here in this state -- we're setting the stage for a terrorist attack in this country. And the group is not going to be ISIS, it's going to be USIS -- us against these injustice law officers and people who continue to allow racism to grow into this city".

Black churches have a very strong influence in black communities. With the mention of the "open weapons law", if this is not a call to arms to the black community to kill cops and whites, I don't know what it is. The meaning of "us" is clear.

elwood p suggins said...

As I kind of expected, at least one of the guys who approached the police officer is in fact an adult, not a "child". Had a quite lame excuse for his little gyrations and whatever as he "profiled".

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Yeah, its a mixed bag. It was a private party on property controlled by a homeowner's association, and even if it was a public park, such facilities can be reserved for private parties at certain hours, in which case, gate crashers would still be committing a misdemeanor.

And like Gary says, the cop's actions were over the top, although pulling his gun on two guys menacing him from behind might not be.

Elwood, concealed carry is concealed carry. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is a new phenomenon on Milwaukee. Thugs who don't yet have a conviction get a concealed carry permit, then act as a "human holster" for guys making hits. When police arrive, the guy with the permit and no record has three guns in their possession, and the felons have none.

elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys--if by gooses (reminds me of a short story) and ganders you are talking about CCW being for qualified blacks as well as whites, you are absolutely correct, and such would undoubtedly cut down on crime in the minority 'hoods, with regard to the mutts you mention as well as others.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. There was a woman who had a CC permit who was approached by a hefty young man saying he wanted her car, keys, purse... and when she hesitated, said to a companion, "Hand me the cannon bro." So she pulled out her gun and shot him. He lived to say he was really enjoying it until he got shot, but now it doesn't seem like such a good idea. I couldn't agree more that it was a great time for the lady to have a gun, and yes, she is the same color as the guy holding her up -- as are most robbery victims.

But the police would really like some better tools to get people off the street who have weapons and aren't legally allowed to. The gun lobbies fight them tooth and nail over anything and everything. And this "human holster" is a significant problem, although after a long investigation one has been sufficiently connected to crimes that he is facing charges.

elwood p suggins said...

It works considerably more often then it doesn't. Most legitimate studies/reports (excluding those which involve anti-gun methodology/ideology) indicate that guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens are used defensively several million times a year to prevent crime, most usually without a shot being fired by anyone. This may be as many as 3-4 times as often as guns are used offensively against them by mutts.

Interestingly enough, even the CDC, which has more recently become fairly anti-gun, allows as how there may be more than 3 million annual defensive usages of guns.

Siarlys is apparently unaware that some years back, the NRA strongly supported the national instant background check which is now in effect.

As just one example of why "gun lobbies" are active, a while back NJ came up with a $1 billion-plus (yes, with a "b") program which required that any gun sold in that state must be accompanied by a fired bullet and casing, which turned out to be a total flop (as predicted by the "gun lobbies") in that, as I recall, not a SINGLE gun crime had been solved by this program, which was fairly quietly phased out after a few years and a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Well, if Georgia allows guns to be sold without firing a bullet and collecting the bullet and casing, and those guns are transported to NJ, then of course gangsters in NJ will use guns from Georgia to commit their crimes.

elwood p suggins said...

If dog rabbit syndrome. I suppose that GA, and the other 49 (to include NJ's reinstitution of its failed program), and DC, should then collectively spend at least $50 billion, and probably a LOT more, of tax money on this alleged crime solution, not crime prevention, effort for essentially no result at all, let alone a good one. Remember the definition of insanity.

And of course, those who would transport those GA guns to NJ would in the process commit any number of both Federal and State felonies, good for a LOT of prison time, where they would essentially be unable to transport guns anywhere unless they managed to escape.

Sounds a lot like immigration to me. A LOT of people, mainly lefties, carry on about "comprehensive immigration reform" (weasel words for amnesty, etc.). Merely enforcing existing immigration laws as they are written would go a long ways toward alleviating the problems. Much the same with guns and a lot of other stuff, for that matter. Giving cops "new tools" which, by definition, involve only law-abiders seems counterproductive.

And the story about the lady is right on. Since black people kill other black people a lot, and I mean a LOT (did I say a LOT!!!!!), more often than cops do, seems that the highest and best, as well as the most effective/efficient, use of guns in the black communities would be by the decent, law-abiding residents against the black mutts rather than the police, as advocated by the aforementioned fool preacher.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

elwood, your random thoughts trip over each other as they run off your tongue, or your keyboard, producing a tangled mess. Try to state one idea clearly, and then see if you can manage a second.

I won't get into immigration right now, in this context that's a purple herring, you introduced it with so little relevance. It is amusing, however, to hear northern Virginia conservatives saying "right on."

As for gun control, I have long said that the Democrats and the liberals seem determined to let the Republicans and the conservatives have all the guns. This is downright stupid. It misses out on some important lessons of the civil rights movement. E.g., when a march settled down for the night, camping on the grounds of some church brave enough to offer its grounds for the purpose, word was quietly put out in the local community that some of those present had well-oiled rifles and a supply of ammunition. These were not brandished during the march, but they were ready for use while all the rest of the marchers slept. The local KKK said gosh darn it all, and set aside their plans for a little rapine, torture, kidnapping, etc. The Klan, as I'm sure Gary would agree, were basically cowards, who preferred to have an advantage like ten drunk men armed with shotguns taking out one 120 pound unarmed woman.

It was good the lady accosted as she got out of her car had a gun, and a concealed carry permit. On the other hand, when someone's brother dissed someone's sister and someone came over to the neighbor's house to say something about it and someone yelled back and someone brought over a gun and fired it and someone inside the house fired upon fired back... it was NOT a good situation for anyone in the neighborhood. Ditto for the two high school girls who got into a fight on the street corner, and each had a few girlfriends join in, and then some of them called for their boyfriends, who started shooting at each other, and only one person died, an uninvolved girl on the other side of the street who happened to be walking by when it all broke loose. In those cases, it would have been much better had there been no guns in anyone's hands. More guns, in the hands of other neighbors, would not have been helpful.

It seems to me that firing one bullet out of one gun each time it is sold could be done for far less money than you are talking about. NJ is famous for political corruption, and I suspect someone was running up a huge tab and pocketing the difference. Being able to trace guns that ARE USED in crime scenes is rather helpful, is it not, Gary?

I'm not entirely sure what is a really sound gun policy. As a broad outline, easier said than done, it should provide very stiff penalties for carrying a gun without a permit on a public street in an incorporated area, or other densely populated area, take guns away permanently from people who are mentally ill (possibly with compensation and resale to people who have permits), and leave people free to keep guns in their homes, but with some provision that anyone involved in an urban Hatfield and McCoy shoot-out looses all their guns, and commits a felony if they ever own another one.

It may take twenty five years to develop a really sound policy, there are so many variables, but demands to take away all guns from everybody, vs. demands that no law about guns should be allowed to pass any legislature, are not helpful.