Saturday, February 8, 2014

More of BParks' America

Police State USA (Report from

Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

Police in Pinal County, Arizona, claimed that the shooting death of a suspected car thief two weeks ago came after the man had turned to reach for a weapon. But video surfaced this week from a bystander, showing that the suspect had turned his back to officers, with his hands held high in the air.

Manuel Longoria, of Mesa, led police on a 40-minute chase in Eloy, and only stopped after sheriff’s deputies crippled the stolen Toyota Corolla with a tire-popping device. Witnesses said that Longoria told police after he got out of the car, surrounded, that he wouldn’t be taken alive. Police fired Tasers and beanbags at him before he turned around.

The video shows him with his hands above his head. One second later, a sheriff’s deputy fired two shots into him, killing him.

Investigators found no weapon.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office said it investigated the shooting and found the officer’s use of lethal force justified.

-----> The shooter returned to duty a week later. <-----

(Emphasis added. --cw)



  1. That was clearly an act of murder. The man surrendered after the rubber bullets, his hands were in the air, no weapon present. No danger to their lives.
    The fact that this cop is still on duty and that the police department's "investigation" cleared the cop speaks volumes about the corruption.

    Now I would also add that I would never steal a car, lead the police on a nearly hour-long police chase endangering God only knows how many innocent bystanders, or be dumb enough to tell the cops you aren't taking me alive. Despite all of that the use of lethal force was unwarranted. Police are obligated to try and take the suspect alive unless a clear and present danger was evident (there wasn't) and lethal force should only have been used as a last resort. The cop could just as easily have shot him in the leg and taken him down that way.

  2. Bu...bu.....but little Manuel just wanted a better life here in America. And he crossed the desert to get here, so he has earned all our respect.

    1. I am looking for info on this Austin. Can you point me to a link that indicates where he was born and how he came to the US.

    2. Thank you Ms. Chastain. Mr. Austin seems to know about the deceased man's immigration background, so I was hoping he would share a link. I've looked into the newspaper reports and could not find anything saying that he had come through the desert. Accordingly, I was interested in Mr. Austin's source.

    3. I can't speak for Austin, but I suspect his comment was more a dig at BParks' seeming indiscriminate willingness to let in anybody who "traverses a desert" without considering whether they have a criminal background and would be a danger to people here....

    4. So just racist stereotyping?

    5. I didn't see anything racist in Austin's comment. I didn't see any reference or allusion to race at all in it. Could you point it out for me?

      I happen to agree with the sentiment behind Austin's comment, though. Leftist thought seems to be that experiencing a period of oppression or hardship confers virtue on a people. I disagree. If that were true, Southerners, after the war and reconstruction, would have been some of the most virtuous people on earth. They weren't.They had their faults and failings, just like everyone else. They weren't total saints any more than they were the total sinners found in the flogger mentality.

    6. You really don't see any racial stereotyping in assuming that because someone is Latino that he must have entered the US through the desert, presumably without legal authorization?

    7. Not when Austin was using the scenario BParks set up. Besides, considering that there are millions of Latinos here without legal authorization, and they make up a sizable portion of the Latino population here, there are pretty good odds that the designation fits. But I still see Austin's comment as being more about the likely errors in BParks' scenario than about Manuel Longoria.

  3. He was quite a criminal, no doubt, But he didn't deserve to be shot in the back while unarmed and trying to surrender.

    1. Indeed. A criminal, and probably violent, but its not up to law enforcement to be judge, jury and executioner. This isn't Robocop or Judge Dread. Everyone has a right to due process. And killing a man after he'd given up is disgraceful, no matter what the circumstances.

  4. Here's a deal for you Patrick. I noticed you recently made a visit to Kevin Levin's blog. Kevin had posted a photo of a group of students, approximately fifteen in number, and all of them were white. Yet you didn' t make a nasty remark about the students being all "white and off-white". When you do, I will direct you to the information you want.

    1. I presume that you don't have the information to back up your statement.

    2. I presume you haven't made a nasty remark at Levin's blog regarding the photograph I mentioned. But don't despair, he posted another photo today. And guess what? Yup, everyone in his photo is white. Every single person. Or as you might phrase it, they are all "white and off-white".

      PS- Have you fired off that nasty letter of protest to the Department of Mathematics at Hofstra? What about the protest letter to Hofstra Law School? Patrick, I have to be candid, until you do those things, your wails of racism are empty, and quite frankly, more than a little comical. Talk to you soon.

  5. I asked you for factual information to back up your comment and you obviously don't have it. What you wrote about the deceased was based not on the man's bio, but on his ethnicity. The notion that you can somehow condition the production of evidence upon an unrelated act by me is nonsensical.

  6. I asked you to condemn a shameful and palpable example of white separatism, and you flatly refused. Your refusal is very clearly based on your superficial political sympathies, and directly contradicts your otherwise loud and aggressive advocacy of multi-culturalism.That you stubbornly resist this obvious conclusion is illogical.

    1. Since what you ask has nothing to do with Ms. Chastain's post or my discussion of it, it is irrelevant to my comment on your racist assumptions in the comments section following her post on this death. You raise it merely in a lame attempt to deflect attention from your evidenceless claims.

    2. Mr. Young, Austin's question may not relate directly to the subject of this post and thread, but it does relate directly to our recent discussions about diversity, multiculturalism and racism. You did remark on Simpson's blog that people attending a Southern heritage event were "white and offwhite," as if there was something wrong with that. You suggested that that the Virginia Flaggers halt their mission and "recruit" until the racial make-up of their group reflected the racial demographics of the Confederacy.

      For quite some time, Austin has pointed out the hypocrisy of critics who repeatedly sledgehammer the subject of "racism" and "white supremacy" in Confederate heritage, or just among Southerners, past and present -- who, in fact, live lifestyles that are very close to what they verbally condemn. My assumption is that such critics think THEIR defacto racism and white supremacy are okay so long as they VERBALLY condemn racism and white supremacy in others.

      For example, it is okay for Kevin Levin to teach at a virtually all-white school, with an all-white faculty, and put pictures of his all-white students on an all-white field trip on his really, really white blog, because he uses that blog almost exclusively to focus on black folks, especially those in the past, those living during slavery and the war -- because, for liberals such as himself, black misery exists in exact inverse proportion to white (Southern/Confederate) evil. You don't even have to talk about how evil they were; just showing how miserable blacks were says it for you.

      Now. I think you know all this, and your attempted deflection is eyeroll-worthy. If you don't like Austin's trying to strike a bargain for the exchange of information, how about just answering MY question:

      Why are white and off-white people at a Confederate heritage event offensive and objectionable, but in Kevin Levin's classroom, they're not offensive and objectionable, or worthy of comment, or even worthy of notice?

    3. Due to space limits, I have broken this response up:

      Ms. Chastain, you are free to notice what you want to notice about Mr. Levin's class. Mr. Austin is not trying to "strike a bargain" in exchange for documenting his claim about the deceased, he is merely covering up his lack of evidence.

      I thoroughly resist the notion that I live and work in a "whites-only" environment. I work at the Central American Refugee Center in Hempstead, New York. Here is wikipedia's recounting of the Census data on that village:

      "As of the census of 2010, there were 53,891 people, 15,234 households, and 10,945 families residing in the village. The racial makeup of the village was 21.9% White (6.6% Non-Hispanic White), 48.3% Black or African American, 0.6% Native American, 1.4% Asian, 0.0% Pacific Islander, 22.8% from other races, and 5.0% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 44.2% of the population"

      I live in the small village of Westbury. Here are the demographics of my village:

      "As of the census of 2010, there were 15,146 people, 4,638 households, and 3,441 families residing in the village. The population density was 5,979.0 people per square mile (2,304.2/km2). There were 4,714 housing units at an average density of 1,976.1 per square mile (761.5/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 43.9% White, 27.8% African American, 0.1% Native American, 7.0% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.0% from other races, and 3.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino were 27.3% of the population."

      At my workplace, CARECEN, white people make up 30% of the staff. At Long Island Wins, where I write, whites make up 25% of the staff. Roughly half of the readers of my blogs are non-white. I am also employed by New York Immigrant Action, where the staff is 40% white. If you discern some hypocrisy in my employment, you must have a peculiar notion of diversity.

      I also lecture at Hofstra University School of Law, where I have been a consistent advocate for increasing diversity. In my current course, my class is 88% non-white. My doctrinal immigration course, one of the largest of its kind in the region, is traditionally a majority-minority course.

      I note that Hofstra Law is in the top third of law schools in diversity, but I am working to improve that. As you are aware, as a special professor of law, I do not sit on the faculty senate and do not have a hand in appointments.

    4. Part 2:

      I have no idea why Mr. Austin is preoccupied with the Hofstra Math Department. With professors like Safwan Akbik, Mira Bhargava, Arulappah Eswarathasan, Behailu Mammo, and Yihren Wu it is hardly a bastion of white supremacy. And, as you know, someone at the law school has no say whatsoever over faculty appointments at a completely different school.

      As for your apparently taking issue with my supposed "lifestyle" which you describe as "defacto racism and white supremacy are okay so long as they VERBALLY condemn racism and white supremacy in others." The lack of any awareness of my actual "lifestyle" which includes mentoring many non-white students and young lawyers, a long-term romantic relationship with a non-white woman, involvement in a majority-minority Catholic parish, chairing the New York Immigration Coalition at a time when I was the only white man on the board, being honored by groups like the National Association of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Social Workers and the National Immigration Forum, founding the Long Island Immigrant Alliance makes such an assessment of my alleged "racism" laughable. My history of work in alliance with the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center alone would stand against such a proposition. It is clearly being raised merely as an attempt to smear me.

      As for Professor Simpson. My understanding is that ASU is among the top 10% universities nationally in degrees granted to minority students. The school is also one of the top universities for Latino students pursuing doctorates. Not sure what the issue is there for Mr. Austin. I have never met Professor Simpson. I have no idea where he lives or with whom he socializes or sleeps with. Perhaps you know more than I do.

      I have met Kevin Levin once and I have read his recent book on The Crater. I am not in the habit of criticizing people for where they work for a living. Do you have a problem with him working at a Jewish school? I think that he has done an admirable job in expanding interest in the Civil War beyond the traditionally white borders of prior scholarship. If you find in that something to condemn, then that says more about
      you than it does about Mr. Levin.

    5. You said, "As for your apparently taking issue with my supposed "lifestyle" which you describe as "defacto racism and white supremacy are okay so long as they VERBALLY condemn racism and white supremacy in others."

      I identified who I was talking about, and I didn't name you. I said critics who repeatedly sledgehammer the subject of "racism" and "white supremacy" in Confederate heritage, or just among Southerners, past and present -- who, in fact, live lifestyles that are very close to what they verbally condemn. THAT is who I was talking about. Again, you weren't specifically named or mentioned, and if you don't fit the description, it wasn't about you.

      From what I know of them, I think it fits Simpson, Levin and Meyer quite well.

      The problem I have with you is your willingness to overlook in them what you would condemn in others. Why is a Jewish school that is exclusively for Jews, and that, by appearances, excludes blacks and Latinos, etc., be somehow okay, but other schools (or any other social entities) that excludes them are worthy of condemnation? Would you support, at least verbally, a push to have students of other racial/ethnic/religious groups admitted to Levin's school? If not, why not?

      You have not explained why "white and off-white" faces at the Lee-Jackson parade were somehow offensive and objectionable, but "white and off-white" faces at Levin's school aren't. Since you are such a crusader for diversity, please advise me when and where un-diversity is okay -- and why.

      I don't think he is "expanding interest in the Civil War." He is expanding interest in condemning white Southerners, past and present, for their "racism" and "white supremacy." That it is subtle and wrapped in civil war "scholarship" and "memory" (which, is so broad and definitionless he can include nearly anything in it that he finds useful for aspersion-casting), makes it no less true.

    6. My understanding is that Mr. Levin's blog is among the most widely read Civil War blogs on the internet. Let us look at the last ten articles Mr. Levin has posted to see if your contention that his blog is not about Civil War history and memory, but about "condemning white Southerners." Here are the articles, along with a berief description of each:

      A War of Liberation and Empire-about the massacre by Union troops of Native Americans at Sand Creek.

      Boston's Civil War Memory: A Student's Reflection-A student reacts to touring Boston's Civil War sites witrh Levin

      Shelby Foote's Great Compromise-A video without commentary by Levin of Foote talking about African American memory of slavery as well as how Southerners and Northerners were more able to view the war dispassionately. Foote says he hopes blacks will one day be able to do the same.

      Heritage Attacks Are in the Eyes of the Beholder-about how Sons of Union Veterans reacted to negative information about Union soldiers presented by Mr. Levin with an implied contrast to SCV reactions to similar info.

      New to the Civil War Memory Library-a list of recently published books on the Civil War era that Levin is reading.

      Remembering the Battle of the Crater Reviewed in Journal of Southern History-Mr. Levin excerpts a recent review of his book.

      Following Boston's Civil War Memory Trail-A brief description of Mr. Levin's class trip.

      Henry Louis Gates on Free Blacks and the Confederacy-A video of Gates describing life for Free Blacks in the South before 1865. Levin does not spend much time discussing the video, but he clearly disagrees with some of the points Gates makes.

      My Great Great Grandfather Didn't Own Slaves (So What?)-A discussion of a recent article by NPS historian John Hennessey on Rangers encountering visitors to battlefields with an emotional investment in how history is told. Levin concludes that that emotional investment is fading.

      Sketch of an Argument about the Crater-A discussion of the reaction of White Union troops to the use of blacks at the Battle of The Crater. Includes hard racial attitudes by White Unionists against blacks.

    7. Ms. Chastain, you wrote: "I identified who I was talking about, and I didn't name you. I said critics who repeatedly sledgehammer the subject of "racism" and "white supremacy" in Confederate heritage, or just among Southerners, past and present -- who, in fact, live lifestyles that are very close to what they verbally condemn. THAT is who I was talking about. Again, you weren't specifically named or mentioned, and if you don't fit the description, it wasn't about you."

      You only specifically named two individuals, but you implied that the group of which you spoke consisted of more people than that. Since I have been called the "Diversity King" by you and since your commenters have branded me a "limousine liberal" with no contact with people other than educated whites, I don't think that I was wrong in my response.

    8. Ms. Chastain, you wrote: "Why is a Jewish school that is exclusively for Jews, and that, by appearances, excludes blacks and Latinos, etc., be somehow okay, but other schools (or any other social entities) that excludes them are worthy of condemnation?"

      I do not understand that Mr. Levin's school excludes blacks and Latinos. If it does, it would be worthy of condemnation. However, I believe that it, like many religious schools, draws students mainly from among members of its religion. I don't, per se, oppose religiously based education. I am a product of the Catholic School System on Long Island. My parents wanted me to have a religiously grounded education. In your part of the world, religious training might be in decline, but here in New York it is pretty widespread.

      My schools did not exclude non-whites, and my parish school has a long history of enrolling non-Catholics from the mainly Protestant African American community in Westbury.

      So if your question is should there be a prohibition on religious education, I would answer no.

      Would I object to schools which as you say "exclude" blacks and Latinos, I certainly would. I have no idea what Gann's admission policies are, but at my Catholic alma mater, St. Brigid's, over half of the current study body is non-white.

      Many of the questions you pose to me seem to be about people I know only through their work on the net. My answers come from my own life, of which I know a lot about.

      If you want to condemn anyone else for where they work, who they sleep with, or other aspects of their personal or work life, then be my guest. That is no concern of mine. I live and work in an environment of rich diversity. I'm guessing that you would be less fearful if you could say the same.

    9. Please, Mr. Young. You're an educated and intelligent man. I'm certain you could pick up on my meaning. For Levin, the "Civil War" is the pretext -- and the tool -- for condemning white Southerners, past and present, for their "racism" and "white supremacy." His blog is the arena for showcasing his condemnation.

      I haven't read the articles you summarized, but from just your list, I would bet that three deal with what I described (Shelby Foot's Great... Heritage Attacks ... My Great-Great Grandfather...). Also, his book about The Crater ... well, based on what I know from his blog, I believe his motive for writing this was to evilize/monsterize (white) Confederates, and his promotion of the book is promoting that view. As for Henry Louis Gates -- he committed the unforgivable sin of not spitting on the notion of black Confederates, and has thus earned Levin's ire...

    10. Yes, the group I describe consists of more people than the three I named. These are people I call "floggers" -- flogging bloggers. (See my first reference to floggers at the end of this post: :

      Floggerettes are people who follow these blogs and post in the comments, and generally support the flogger viewpoint.

      I think you align with them, but you are more subtle about it ... perhaps "floggerette lite" would more accurately describe you.

      So you don't like being called "limousine liberal"? Tell me about it. I don't like what floggers and floggerettes call me either, or any other aspect of their denigration.

  7. Mr. Young says, "I do not understand that Mr. Levin's school excludes blacks and Latinos. If it does, it would be worthy of condemnation. However, I believe that it, like many religious schools, draws students mainly from among members of its religion."

    So, basically what you're saying is that it's okay for Jewish schools to passively exclude non-Jews who are black and/or Latino. Basically, what you're doing, is showing your double standard. I'm sure your inclusionary Catholic school was very nice, but that was not the subject of my comments.

    Obviously, my question was not "Should there be a prohibition on religous education?" My question was, "Should racial exclusion be allowed on the basis of religious education?"

    You seem to be real, real good at missing the point. Did they teach you that at lawyer school?

    I'm not fearful, Mr. Young. I'm opposed to the deliberate changes being made to destroy my culture. And I would bet money that what you "know" about my "unrich, undiverse" living and working environment is far more a roduct of your imagination and prejudice than my reality.

  8. Patrick,
    Your refusal to condemn obvious acts of white separatism perpetrated by those with whom you sympathize politically was fully expected. Nevertheless, I must say the detailed reply you gave ("some of my best friends are black" etc. etc.) was utterly unpersuasive.

    PS-Brooks Simpson (white male), Andy Hall (white male) Kevin Levin( white male) and Al Mackey (white male-if you put them in a group photo, you would describe them as "white and off-white"),continue to post in ENGLISH ONLY on their respective blog sites. This, I know, is highly offensive to you, as it works to exclude the Spanish speaking immigrant community which has such a keen and active interest in Civil War scholarship. You get after 'em now, OK?

    1. Mr. Austin, the term "English-Only" does not refer to people writing exclusively in one language. That is common, and entirely appropriate in most circumstances. The term refers instead to government mandates that no language other than English be used for all or some communications.

      I hope that clarifies what English Only means.

      BTW, my response was not of the "some of my best friends are black" variety. I have served non-white communities, been honored by them, and represented them for three decades. I don't need to trot out any tokens to make that point.

  9. I thought this photograph of a group of "white and off-white" males was worth looking at. Gee, how did the U.S. ever figure out how to get to the moon with this group of dimwits at the controls. One would think that without the "richness of diversity" guiding them, they would have wound up landing at a bus stop in Seattle.

  10. Patrick,
    The counterfeit and self-serving definition you hide behind serves to obfuscate rather than clarify, but I believe you know that. Indeed, the fact that you are reduced to an argument asserting that "it depends on what the meaning of is, is" pretty much ends the debate. I look forward to the next one.

    1. So "white and off-white" faces gathered together are not okay here, but are okay there ... That says a lot about diversity and multiculturalism as it is pushed in this country... but nothing new or surprising.

  11. The outrageous hypocrisy of the multi-cultural leftists is easy and fun to expose. Al Mackey, (white male) for example, warbles enthusiastically about the eight-language multi-cultural Coke commercial, yet his Civil War hobby and website are absolute bastions of English only whiteness, and his Air Force career was a bastion of English only whiteness. Why doesn't Patrick Young (white male) mock and ridicule this fact. Why doesn't Patrick Young mock and ridicule the many gatherings, populated exclusively by "white and off-white" people Mackey (white male) attends?
    Because Al Mackey (white male) gives empty, meaningless lip-service to "diversity". Same with the rest of the whites at English only "Crossroads".

    1. "Why doesn't Patrick Young mock and ridicule the many gatherings, populated exclusively by "white and off-white" people Mackey (white male) attends?"

      Ummm? How would I know what gatherings Al Mackey attends, Austin?

    2. The same way you know what gatherings the VaFlaggers attend?

  12. Also, Mackey (white male) routinely advertises them on his web-site. I know you have seen the many lectures he attends. Have you seen the scholars who conduct the lectures? They are all, like you and Mackey, white. And the lectures are all given in English, and English only. No Spanish interpreters. And thing thing is, many of the lectures are given by the NPS, a Federal agency. Speaking in English only. You (white male) and Mackey (white male)), need to go get 'em. And you simultaneously need to protest Mackey's (white male) racist, English only web-site. After, of course, you take on the Hofstra, ASU, and USAFA administrations for their respective discriminatory hiring practices. And of course Levin for working at an all-white English dominant school. Or are you still busy taking cheap-shots at the Virginia Flaggers?

    1. You seem to really have problems with white people Mr. Austin.

      As for your concern that much of Civil War related study and publication focuses on white people, I wanted to share with you a link to my series "The Immigrants' Civil War":
      This is part of a four-year project to make Civil War scholarship more accessible to new immigrants.

      Here are articles focusing on Latinos in the war that you might want to share with your Hispanic colleagues.

      As you are probably aware, I have spoken about the subject on Radio Alternativa Latina where the Spanish-speaking audience can be reached at the breakfast table.

      I appreciate your continued advocacy for diversity and I invite you to visit me in Hempstead's Little El Salvador district where my office is located at the Central American Refugee Center (CARECEN).

    2. Problems with white people, Patrick? Goodness no. Like you, I owe my very life to the union of two white people. Like you, I was housed, clothed, fed, cared for, and educated by white people. Like you, I enjoy the luxuries of life because of the genius of white people. Like you, I travel by aircraft because of white people, I watch television and listen to the radio because of white people. Like you, I stand in awe knowing that white men landed on the moon. Like you, I use my computer because of the genuius of white men. Like you, I enjoy the miracles of modern medicine because of white men. Like you, I drive through tunnels and over bridges because of the sheer genius of white men. Like you, I rely on electricity to to power my TV, computer and home appliances because of the genius of white men. Like you, I use oil discovered by and harnesses through the genius of white men. Like you, I marvel at the breathtaking complexity of the skyscrapers because of the genius of white men. Good grief, without the genius white men, our civil society would like like the backward, filthy, squalid, impoverished, cesspool countries of Guatemala Honduras, and El Salvador, for chrissakes.

    3. Always enjoyable to see your reversion to racism Mr. Austin.

  13. lol. When you call the members of La Raza "racists", I'll perhaps give some credence to your laughable accusation. But not until then.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.