And the Black community seems to prefer perpetual victimhood to justice.

[b]THE VICTIM MYTH[/b]

By WILLIAM TUCKER

January 4, 2003 -- A TEENAGE thug is shot dead while holding a BB gun to the head of an undercover detective posing as a deliveryman. So what happens? A mob assembles outside the restaurant and starts harassing employees.

The exact same day, the papers carry the story of a 15-year-old Brooklyn teen gunned down in a street robbery. In Queens, a Hispanic college student is run over and killed by a 25-year-old with whom he had had an argument. Where are the demonstrations protesting those murders? Oh - they don't count, because they didn't involve the police.

Last year, only 580 people were murdered in New York City compared with more than 2,000 who died 10 years ago. In both instances, nearly 90 percent of the murder victims were black or Hispanic.

This reflects the national trend, where blacks commit more than half the murders in the country, despite being only 13 percent of the population. In 2000, the murder rate among blacks (25.8 per 100,000) was more than seven times the rate among whites (3.2 per 100,000). (The murder rate for Hispanics usually falls almost exactly between the white and black rates, about three times the white rate but only half the black rate.)

By conservative estimates, then, at least 1,200 black and Hispanic lives were saved in New York City last year by the success of the decade-long drive to cut crime.

What caused this dramatic improvement? The only conceivable answer is improved policing.

For decades, academic criminologists dominated the discussion of what caused crime with their patter about poverty and youth population bulges. But over the last decade, the percentage of young men in the population has actually risen. The economy was sluggish in the early 1990s, then soared, and finally tanked the last two years. None of this had any correlation with falling crime.

Instead, effective policing has made the difference. Employing James Q. Wilson and George Kelling's "Broken Windows" theory, police began cracking down on small offenses, concerning themselves with public order as well as major felonies. Particularly effective has been aggressive campaign of search-and-seizure to get guns off the street. Another improvement has been the advanced statistical analysis that pinpoints criminal hotspots and provides quick reaction.

And that's what led the plainclothes detective into the building on West 148th Street last week. Deliverymen from a neighboring Wimpy's had been robbed at gunpoint three times the previous week - once in the same building. In all three instances, the caller asked the deliveryman to bring a large amount of change.

When a fourth call came on Thursday specifying that the deliveryman cash a $50 bill, a police detective dressed as a Wimpy's employee went instead. He was immediately jumped by a 17-year-old who put a gun to his head. The detective's backup killed the robber.

So what do friends and neighbors do? They go down to Wimpy's and start harassing employees, breaking furniture and charging the restaurant with "setting up" the killing. There's even talk of starting a boycott.

So let's ask a few questions. Do the neighbors consider robbing a deliveryman at gunpoint a harmless teenage prank? Do they think the backup officer should have waited until the robber puts a bullet through his partner's head before reacting?

Would they prefer that Wimpy's start refusing to make home deliveries? Didn't Pizza Hut try that a couple of years ago? Wasn't it roundly condemned as "racial discrimination?"

The violence that plagues African-American neighborhoods does not come from without - it comes from within. Many neighborhoods live with a level of violence that most people - black or white - find intolerable.

Police violence has nothing to do with it. Even the occasional justified police shooting like last Thursday's is a drop in the bucket. And completely unjustified police shootings are as rare as comets - and remembered in the same way.

All this poses a simple question to black leaders. Do they want to continue suppressing crime in order to limit victimization? Or are they willing to tolerate more crime in order to avoid potentially violent confrontations between police and offenders?

If they prefer the former, they'd better get themselves down in front of those demonstrators and make the point clear.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/52481.htm[/url]

A good article... this came from the NY Post? Don't they have a rep of being one step above the Enquirer? Yet they printed this? What is the world coming to?

Blame the parents and the lack of discipline on their children. A relative was interviewed and stated something to the fact that the cops didn't have to kill him. Accusing them of kill first and ask questions later. Well, none of it would have happened if the delinquent didn't plan to rob the cop.  Got what he deserved!
The group of people had the audacity to protest and blame the restaurant owner also for the death. He took a chance at fast cash and faced the consequence of his actions.

This is what we have going on in Cincinnati.

What do you mean the NYPD cant win? ALL POLICE DEPTS CANT WIN!!

On a high speed chase:

If they back off: NOT AGRESSIVE ENOUGH
If they go after the driver and he hits someone: THE COPS FAULT, TOO AGGRESSIVE


Or how about when )in a domestic dispute) where the husband/boyfriend is drunk. Significant other calls the cops to help her. Guy gets beligerant with the cops and the wife/GF jumps all over the cop's shit.

They CANT win. ITS BS!!

LAPD officers out here have quit because of this "damned if you do, damned if you dont" mentality.

Thats the problem. If they DONT then cant you hear the Al Sharptons of the world say "OH ITS RACIAL, THEY DONT WANT TO HELP US"

I would say the MAJORITY of the people in those areas WANT to get out but they cant and they WANT the cops there. Then you have the 1% that make it dificult [b]AND[/b] the media feeds on it and they light the fuse.