At 2:13 in the morning of 7 April 2001, just after the bars closed, two officers of the Cincinnati police spotted a man wanted on 14 criminal charges walking down Vine Street. When the man saw the police, he ran. It wasn't the first time he'd run from police, either. This man had successfully evaded arrest by running away on two previous occasions. The two officers chased him south on Vine, east on 13th Street, south on Jackson Street, then west on 12th Street. More police joined the chase as word of it spread. One of them, Officer Steve Roach, saw the suspect jump over a fence. Officer Roach left his squad car, chased the fleeing man a ways, and then fired his weapon, bringing the fugitive down with a fatal wound.

The fugitive was a 19-year-old Black named Timothy Thomas. If he had been White, nothing much would have happened afterward. The coroner would have pronounced him dead, the parents would boo-hoo, the media would have caught laryngitis, and things would have gone on as before. But Timothy Thomas was not White. He was Black. And in the United States today, that makes a huge difference.

First, there was a riot, which grew out of a "peaceful" demonstration that didn't stay peaceful for very long. During the riot, the police failed to use the necessary force to prevent the illegal Black violence. The television media were there videotaping, so it may be that the police didn't want to get into trouble for offending any of those precious, noble Blacks. Most of the police had circled the wagons around City Hall to guard the Mayor and other local politicians, leaving the businesses in Over-the-Rhine without adequa—hell, without any protection at all. The police who were near the rioters just stood around watching while White citizens were victimized by Black violence. The Blacks could have murdered any number of White people during the riot, and the police, evidently, would have watched... and watched...

Consider the way this riot developed. It began as a peaceful protest. But if the protesters had, from the beginning, only peaceful intentions, then they wouldn't have been so ready to riot as soon as their numbers had grown. I think that the "peaceful demonstration" was the Blacks' way of camouflaging a riot-in-the-making, a masquerade by the earlier arrivals while waiting for the rest of the party to show up. When the Blacks switched from "peaceful demonstration" to rampage mode, it happened quickly (as if by prearrangement). Although no single facet of the riot definitely proves that a hidden hand was stirring the pot while waiting for a suitable trigger incident, the combination of circumstances suggests that it may be so.

There is a false ring to the yapping of Black leaders and civil rights activists who, now, are calling for "peace." That should probably be interpreted as peace until the next riot. Whitey is being persuaded that it would be morally wrong for him to fight back in between these Black mass assaults. That many of the Black leaders crying "Peace, peace" are with the NAACP suggests who might have done the scheming. The NAACP is a Black advocacy organization created by (and for a while was led by) Marxist Jews. It is not inconceivable that the riot was instigated as a practice session for future city take-overs in all of the US cities having a substantial Black population. There is a false ring, also, to the conciliatory words of religious leaders, which, though containing no racial partisanship in their wording, are indeed partisan in their application. After all, when was the last time a big mob of White people careened through Cincinnati, leaving a trail of murder, rape, pillage and destruction in its wake? I bet it's been quite a while. Those conciliatory words are really meant to head off White efforts at self-defense.

After the riot, the "strong" Cincinnati Mayor Charles Luken started spewing apologies to the Blacks for the shooting of a petty Black criminal who had gambled a third time on his fast feet and lost. If he had any apologies for the White people who suffered at Black rioters' hands while the police were huddled at City Hall, I haven't heard about it. When this mighty mayor was prompted by state officials to request a Justice Department investigation of police conduct, he leaped to throw Officer Roach to the federals. He probably welcomed the relief it gave him from the dilemma, on the one hand, of angering the Blacks with a recognition that Officer Roach had done nothing wrong or, on the other hand, of angering his police with an improper (and too obviously political) reprimand. That is, letting the federal government decide what to do with Officer Roach gave Mayor Luken a way to evade responsibility. Some tough guy, huh?

To judge from the media coverage of the riot, not to mention the contemporaneous behavior of the police, you'd think that the Blacks owned Cincinnati or had somehow arranged to be the only people in town with rights. It just didn't seem to matter how many White people got hit in the head, or had their businesses burned down, or were murdered in the street. The media, as usual with Black crime when they can't simply look the other way, went all out to soften the focus, so that the Black rioters wouldn't seem so bad. It wouldn't do, for example, for the local TV channels to show the riot live because, if they did, White people would see the violence uncensored and maybe come to understand Blacks a little better. (Real Blacks, that is, as opposed to the media's mythical equalitarian stereotype of Blacks.) White people would have seen the looting, the arson, the assaults, and so forth, so of course the live cameras were kept turned off. The newsmen taped scenes, but they edited them to get rid of the most vicious ones.

I think that the media's methods were, partly, what made the police hesitate. The anti-police slant of media coverage of news events involving Black criminals and police officers had been demonstrated repeatedly. It looks like the media used its First Amendment freedom as a cover for intimidating law-enforcement. After all, look at the spot Officer Steve Roach landed in, just because he fired in self-defense. So if the police had enforced the laws, if they had protected the innocent White citizens who where beaten, stabbed, raped, and robbed, the media would have edited their videotapes to twist their coverage to an evil purpose, setting blame at the feet of the Cincinnati Police Department, just as they did with the news reports about Thomas' death.

It's not just that the media are calling the riot by inappropriate names: "demonstration", "protest", etc. A civil demonstration isn't marked by violence and gunshots, but riots usually are. The (Jewish) media are always "whitewashing" Black crime, and their misleading euphemisms for this riot aren't unusual. I've also noticed that some of the media descriptions of the Black mob's activities freely use the word "Black" when a rioter did something legal, like pose for a picture while making the Communist clenched-fist salute (which, by the way, is a more significant gesture than many White people realize), but referred to "a protester" or "a man" or "someone" when the activity being reported was illegal and/or violent. It's almost as if some of the journalists wanted you to think that the mob was only partly Black and that the Blacks were the better-behaved members thereof.

The media have tried mightily to find fault with Officer Roach for shooting a man, who while unarmed, was not known to be unarmed when he was shot. These attempts either gloss over the fact that Timothy Thomas was wanted by police and had embarked on a flight from justice, or they presume that Blacks are expected to engage in a bit of crime now and then, and that police should fail to act upon it unless it rises above a certain level. What level is that? Are the police to ask media representatives, each morning, what Blacks should be allowed to get away with during the next 24 hours? Or will one check per week suffice? The message that this media bias conveys is that Blacks must be cut some slack that Whites don't get. The attitude has rubbed off on the Blacks themselves. None of Timothy Thomas' crimes was a capital offense, and so, hey, why the chase even? Not to mention the shooting.

Officer Roach has made a self-defense issue of the shooting, and this could easily be valid. But it should not be necessary. Although a police officer certainly has the right to shoot when he believes a criminal might harm him if he does not shoot, he should also shoot if it is the only way to stop a fugitive from escaping. Otherwise fast-running criminals will laugh at the law time and again. "Stop in the name of the law" must be understood to mean "Stop, or I shoot," or else those words will have no power over criminals.

It's often hard to decide whether the Jewsmedia are telling the truth or lying. But according to one news report, Ohio has some rather stupid standards for evaluating police shootings. The shooting officer must (says the news article):

1. Not be at fault in creating the situation.
You wouldn't think that an officer gets the blame for "creating the situation" just because he chases a wanted criminal. But with some of the nutty things happening in Cincinnati, you never know. In my personal opinion, the blame here goes to the criminal, one Timothy Thomas, for running from police who were within their rights to arrest him.

2. Reasonably and honestly believed he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering bodily harm.
I take issue with this whole requirement. I think that a police officer may shoot a fugitive who will not obey an order to surrender, if that fugitive might otherwise escape. Timothy Thomas had already demonstrated, twice, his ability to escape on foot. He might have been thinking, "I can run faster than any of these slow White cops, so I can break the law and it's OK. Besides, I'm Black; they wouldn't dare shoot me cause den mah brothas wud raze hell."

3. Believed that the only to get out of the situation was to use deadly force.
Again, I don't think that restricting police to shooting only in self-defense is wise. Criminals won't respect police orders if they think that they can simply speed away. Although Thomas was merely a petty criminal whose crimes were relatively minor ones, the next Black that a cop chases down an alley might be a murderer. Even if a police officer does not fear for his own life, he might have good reason to fear for the lives of his innocent fellow citizens, any of whom might be the murderer's next victim.

4. Didn't violate any duty to withdraw from danger.
So now the cops are supposed to run away from the criminals. Ohio must be a good place to be a quality crook in. A rule like this one is enough to make you wonder whether the crooks are running things in that state.

I have strong doubts that any of these restrictions on police shooting would be examined if Officer Roach had shot a White fugitive, instead of a Black one.

Cincinnati Mayor Charles Luken, in asking the US Justice Department to have the FBI investigate whether Officer Steve Roach did wrong when he shot at a fugitive who was trying to evade justice by running away from the police, may simply be dodging responsibility. But the very suggestion that it is improper for police to shoot at a wanted criminal is offensive, and if it is taken seriously by public officials, it could be dangerous both to the police and to the public. A police officer on a manhunt cannot wait until he positively identifies a gun in the hands of a fugitive because, by that time, the fugitive (if he is armed) will have fired at least once at the officer. If the fugitive is a good shot, the officer might die. It's commonly understood that you should freeze and reach for the sky when a policeman thinks that you need arresting, and that a fugitive assumes the risks of his flight.

Obviously, then, Officer Roach did no wrong. Obviously, he acted properly. Obviously, the fugitive, had he not wanted to be shot, could have given himself up to police custody at once, and, by attempting to flee, made himself liable for any harm that came his way as the result. If a policeman weren't allowed to shoot at criminals, then any time a suspect could run faster than the cop can, he'd get away—just as Thomas had gotten away from police on two previous occasions. The lesson: don't run from the law.

It shouldn't be necessary for an officer to believe himself in danger in order to be justified in shooting. It should be sufficient that a criminal disobey an order to surrender to police custody and to pose a significant risk of escaping unless he is shot. The federal investigation of Officer Roach is a political intimidation of White policemen. It is similar to the federal double-jeopardy trials of the four police officers who were aquitted of police brutality, by a state court, in the beating of Rodney King. If Rodney King had been White, the Justice Department wouldn't have been even the slightest bit interested. If Timothy Thomas had been White, ditto. Federal involvement in a case where the facts call for none can have only one motive. If I were a police officer in any US city, I'd be thinking hard about who might be behind this attempt to leave me without any proper course of action when faced with a minority criminal brazenly defying the law.

Update, 22 July 2001: In Seattle, last March, police officers just stood around while gangs of vicious Blacks went around beating up on White men and sexually abusing White women during a Mardi Gras celebration, right before the policemen's eyes. This new timidity on the part of police officers is the result of a combination of anti-police slanted media coverage and ADL-sponsored "sensitivity training," by which the Jews are waging an organized assault on the morale of the police in America's cities. It remains to be seen whether the police shake off the Jewish poison and recover the will to do their duties "without fear or favor." Since the failure of the Cincinnati municipal government to crush the Black riot last April, shootings have increased in Black-occupied parts of the city about six-fold. In a twist of logic, the Cincinnati police have been getting blamed for pulling back from the crime-ridden Black areas for fear of being labeled "racial profilers." Black spokesmen have begun making accusations of racism against police who won't go into the Black areas and bust the skulls of violent Black criminals. Of course, if they did such a thing, they'd only get accused of racism again. The cops there are in a real damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't kind of situation. One more time, then: the problem with America's cities is their occupation by Blacks. Blacks are violent. Blacks cause crime. If you don't get rid of the Blacks, then you can't get rid of the crime. You don't have to like it; that's just the way it is. Furthermore, while Blacks usually aren't intelligent enough to organize themselves into a creditable military organization, the necessary executive ability can be supplied by the Jews. Jewish organizations, posing as "civil rights" groups, are waging war against America, using Blacks as their pawns, while at the same time weakening the resolve of the police by "sensitivity" brainwashing. Can White police officers really be such fools that they can't see it?

The oddest development following the riot was the "beanbag" incident, in which several officers pulled up and fired stinging beanbags at a group of people near the Thomas funeral, and then departed. None of the cops in the beanbag incident was below the age of 30; they were mature, seasoned police officers, not bucko rookies out for a hoot. Why did they fire the beanbags at a time when the federals were already sniffing around and the police department was politically walking on eggshells? I'll be darned if I know; it sounds very strange. Now, bearing in mind that my only source of information about this incident is the very same media that have distorted most of the rest of the news about the Thomas shooting, the riot, and related events, I suspect that the problem here is that the media have not seen fit to share the information that would make the behavior of the "beanbag" officers understandable. That's what I think, at present.

What might that information be? Well, let's think a minute. Cincinnati had just experienced a riot that grew out of a "peaceful" protest. The officers of the beanbag incident might have seen another such protest and warned the crowd to disperse. The crowd did not disperse. Police might have given the crowd a certain allowance of time to comply, and fired the beanbags when the time expired. This explanation is speculative, of course. The media aren't going to say anything that might make the actions of the police seem reasonable. But it does explain why so many mature officers with good records with their departments fired beanbags at a crowd of protesters.

Being naturally suspicious, I have thought of another explanation: one that does involve police guilt, but not for the obvious reason. It is possible that both the police and some of the protesters were bribed to create the beanbag incident, with the inducement coming from hidden conspirators. I don't consider this scenario probable at present, since the aforementioned explanation of a media bias is simpler and is sufficient for the information that I currently have on the beanbag shooting. Yet... the Jews are perfectly capable of stage-managing something like this and paying for the "acting talent." Just something to keep in the back of your mind.

Furthermore, whenever the Jewsmedia nationally "go supernova" with wall-to-wall stories about racism, as they have lately, you can bet that there's something sneaky afoot, some plan to drive Whites into further cowardice and demoralization, and to bolster the confidence and aggressiveness of non-Whites. The Timothy Thomas shooting might have been a "trigger event" that others had been waiting for. Note very carefully that no media activity of this kind followed the shooting deaths of five (innocent) Whites by two (criminal) Blacks in Wichita, Kansas, on 15 December 2000.

There's really no point in wondering why Blacks are violent. They just are. Blacks have per capita rates for perpetrating violent crime that are, depending on the crime, between four and eighteen times higher than the White rate for the same crime. On the average, then, it would be fair to say that Blacks are about "ten times" more violent than Whites are, and I think that biological (i.e. racial) differences between Whites and Blacks are the paramount and most fundamental reasons. Black men have (a) lower intelligence and (b) higher testosterone levels, as compared with White men. Big gonads, small brains: a dangerous combination. Prattle all you like about "racism"—it's a red herring. The real reasons for Black violence are biological.

According to Census 2000, Black comprise 43% of Cincinnati's residents. If they are typical of Blacks nationwide, then Cincinnati's Blacks will be responsible for... 86% of Cincinnati's murders (and 92% of its interracial murders), at least 77% of its rapes (probably more), 88% of its armed robberies, and somewhere between 75% and 85% of its aggravated assaults. The basis of this prediction is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Political intimidation now has all of the police in the Cincinnati Police Department denying that they do racial profiling. But the statistics indicate that racial profiling is the most sensible kind of criminal profiling. No other characteristic, no social factor, has as much predictive power about a city's per capita rate of violent crime as race has. Race is such an overwhelming determinant of violent crime rates that you can, most of the time with fair accuracy, predict a city's crime rates given only the racial percentages of its residents.

The response of the Cincinnati government to the riot was inexcusably weak, and that weakness will only serve to embolden future rioters.

Update 28 October 2002. I was right in predicting that Cincinnati Blacks would rampage again. Since the April 2001 riot, there have been a number of further riots that have not been reported in the national media. Unless you lived in or near Cincinnati, or were in close communication with someone living there, you might not have heard about the repetitions of rioting.

Blacks who were fearful of joining the fun this time won't be afraid next time. The curfew might have brought an end to this particular round of racial mischief, but it did nothing to safeguard against future riots. What should the city have done? To answer that question, imagine that two hundred Arabs had banded together to do, in Tel-Aviv, what the Blacks did in Cincinnati. What do you suppose the Israeli Army would have done about it? That's what the Cincinnati Police should have done to the Black rioters. You don't try to reason with rioters. Under no circumstances do you negotiate with rioters. You merely issue one, single warning to disperse peaceably, and then, if the riot does not end, soldiers begin shooting with the deliberate intention of killing every last law-breaker. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be appropriate to this purpose. When the Blacks in a dozen or so US cities have been taught that to riot is to die, the riots will come to a complete halt.

The Cincinnati Police are about 28% Black, and this might be a contributing factor in the weakness with which they handle Black rioters. The best zookeepers don't come from the gorilla cage. It would be legitimate for a mayor, for example, to ask what Black officers would do, if they had to choose between shooting Cousin Leroy, down there, or shooting Officer White, up here. The US Cavalry, 120 years ago, sometimes used Apache guides, but they weren't dumb enough to issue them uniforms and horses and call them cavalrymen. Today's city officials, by contrast, are indeed that dumb. And the Wild West was seldom as wild as America's inner cities are today. I recommend that the Black officers of the Cincinnati Police (and the same goes for all other US cities) be pensioned at half pay, immediately, leaving them free to find other work with only one restriction: they must not commit any crimes. If they did commit a crime, they would lose their pension, in addition to being as subject to legal prosecution as any other citizen would be.

Here are some quotes from significant people in Cincinnati, with my remarks afterward.

Police Lieutenant Ray Ruberg (Ruberg?) told reporters, "We're hoping that community leaders come forth and talk to individuals, to try to convince them that civil disobedience, disorder and damage is not the way to get your message across."

Oh, but it is! It worked, didn't it? What are you going to do about it, Lieutenant? You either can keep order, or you can't. It looks like you can't. The strategy that tied up your forces this time will also work the next time, because you didn't deprive the forces opposed to you (?) of the capability for doing it again.

"We cannot tolerate the lawlessness any longer," [Cincinnati Mayor] Luken told a news conference.

Riiighht. You impose a weenie little curfew for a few days, and you think you're a real tough guy. The Blacks and Jews are laughing at your phony resolve, Mister Mayor, because they can see right through it. As long as you have Blacks, your honest citizens of every race will be in constant danger of racially motivated street crimes and there will continue to be episodic riots. You really should have said that you can't tolerate the Blacks any longer because that is where the lawlessness is coming from. Lawlessness is the symptom; race is the cause. You aren't stupid enough to think that a few days of curfew is going to solve this problem, but you are coward enough to pretend that you think so, because you'd otherwise have to admit that Blacks aren't fit to live in a White society. If you did that the Jewish media would hiss and spit all over you and your political career would be finished. But, really, that's no excuse. Your job isn't as important as the lives of the thousands of civilized White people for whose safety you are responsible.

Excerpted from: "Local news shows restraint in riots" by Rick Bird (Cincinnati Post)

Cincinnati TV news stations have displayed plenty of restraint this week in coverage of the civil disturbances. The four local TV news departments have consciously resisted the temptation to provide live wall-to-wall coverage of the riots, worried it might fan the flames.

"We had a number of live trucks positioned where there was a great deal of violence going on, and we chose instead to feed videotape back and exercise some discretion, rather than just throw it on live," said Mark Shafer, WCPO-TV (Channel 9) acting news director. "We believed that the presence of a live camera changes the situation dramatically. People begin to play to it."

That sort of misdirection doesn't fool many people anymore. If the rioters had been White, the TV stations would have shown it live. If the rioters had been White, the violence would have been to the Jewish media bosses what a candy store is to a three-year-old kid. The local television channels didn't show the riot live because the rioters were Blacks, and the TV bosses wanted to have a chance to edit the tape footage and to apply some politically correct sanitation, to impart a mitigating slant favorable to the Blacks.

Every TV station manager in Cincinnati said about the same thing that Mark Shafer did. Is this an example of a unanimous perception of civic responsibility overriding the profit-motive? Or is there, perhaps, something else going on—like, maybe, a policy of marginalizing Black violence? If their cameras had been sending live scenes from the riots, their viewers would have seen the looters, rapists, arsonists, and murderers in the act of committing their crimes. An uncensored video documentary would have been valuable in helping the police to identify the guilty parties and put them in prison. But instead, the TV reporters chose to tape and edit. One wonders what was in the snippets that the editors sent to the incinerator. I bet that the victims of this Black crime wave despise the TV reporters and damn their phony "civic responsibility" straight to hell.

"Mobs turned on nonprofits that help" by Paul Gottbrath (Cincinnati Post)

The irony of the shattered windows and doors across the Vine Street storefront of Jobs Plus Employment Network was not lost on Burr Robinson, its executive director. ''Some of the people we're trying to help are making it more difficult to help them,'' he said Wednesday as workers covered the holes with large sheets of plywood. ''That 18-25 age group is the most difficult to get employed,'' Robinson said. ''They're not ready to submit to the authority of the work place.'' A mob of mostly young men smashed the windows during Tuesday night's rioting.

The White 18-25 age group has no trouble with submitting to the authority of the work place. Robinson's omission of the word Black from his sentence was perhaps unintentional oversight, but I think that it was probably cowardice. Likewise for Gottbrath's sentence following the Robinson quote. The "mostly young men" were really mostly young Black men. No young White men were involved. Again, the reason for the omission is possibly oversight, but probably either cowardice or duplicity.

The agency was among several nonprofits whose offices were vandalized in two days and nights of rioting this week. The rampage was more than a kick in the teeth for organizations trying to make life better for the neighborhoods they serve. It cost them thousands of dollars and forced some to scramble to continue uninterrupted service to their clients.

Why scramble? Why pay? This is the mistake that South Africa made: rebuilding schools and charitable organizations after Blacks rioted and burned them down. And look at what eventually happened to South Africa. Do we want that kind of national collapse here? I certainly don't. Offering to the Blacks the charity of these institutions one time was an act of inexpressible good faith and generosity. To offer it again is simply foolishness.

At an assisted-living complex ... run by Mercy Health Partners, rioters smash[ed] windows in the ... first floor of the building... The residents will remain at Franciscan Terrace until the situation in Over-the-Rhine is more secure, said Brian Forschner, president of Mercy Franciscan Senior Health and Housing Services... Down the block at the Over-the-Rhine Foundation and Resource Center, rioters threw a tire and wheel through a large plate glass window. ''Our window is broken, our spirit is not,'' said executive director Marge Hammelrath. ''We will not be defeated by this.'' Robinson sounded similarly buoyant at Jobs Plus.

Forschner and Robinson sound like men who aren't having to pay for the repairs themselves, don't they? I wonder who does have to foot the bill. Perhaps the White taxpayers?

Forschner said the events of the past week could actually improve his agency's efforts. ''We need to take another look and ask ourselves if we are offering the right services. We will redouble our efforts and dig in.''

In other words, if the first bucket of gasoline doesn't put out the fire, then try another one. Maybe a bigger bucket? How about if you paint it a different color?

Excerpted from "Justice Dept. to review shooting" by Sharon Moloney (Cincinnati Post)

The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday it will review the shooting death of an unarmed teen-ager by a Cincinnati police officer in an Over-the-Rhine alley Saturday morning. The FBI opened the preliminary investigation Wednesday, said Christine Romano, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

"This is an independent, federal investigation," Ms. Romano said. "The FBI's findings will be reported to Washington, where the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office will determine what, if any, further action is required, including prosecution."

I've already recounted the events that led to the shooting. I've already explained why Officer Roach was justified in shooting Timothy Thomas. I'll summarize here: Thomas was wanted by police on valid arrest warrants. When he fled from police, he was in the act of committing yet another crime. It is reasonable for an officer to shoot the criminal to stop the crime, if the criminal might otherwise complete the crime and get away. Thomas had twice previously succeeded in evading arrest by running away. In addition to that, Officer Roach believed that Thomas might have been reaching for a gun, which made Officer Roach decide to fire his gun. There is absolutely nothing in this scenario that calls for a federal investigation, except the political pressure generated by rioting Blacks. The stupid mayor has responded to a crime wave with apologies and rewards for the criminals. He has guaranteed a repetition of the riot, sooner or later, since the Blacks will certainly do again what has "paid off" in the past.

A number of city and state leaders had called for a federal investigation. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell Wednesday sent a letter to U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft and Mayor Charlie Luken suggesting Luken ask officially for a Justice investigation of the Thomas shooting. Three state legislators from Cincinnati had demanded federal scrutiny of both Thomas's death and the practices and procedures of the Cincinnati Police Division. Democrat State Sen. Mark Mallory, and Democrat State Reps. Catherine Barrett and Sam Britton, called also for the immediate release by the Hamilton County Prosecutor of the reports and information he has regarding the death of Thomas.

These politicians understand where the Jews stand on this shooting, and they also understand that their chances of getting re-elected depend on staying in the good graces of the Jews who control the media. That is the reason for their interest in this particular shooting, for why they deliberately failed to notice the fact that the Blacks were at fault all the way through this episode in Cincinnati's history. Timothy Thomas was at fault because he ran from police who were only doing their jobs in trying to arrest him for his crimes. The Blacks who rampaged through the city, looting, assaulting and destroying, were each at fault for whatever damage they did, and in no case was any of them exculpated by their erroneous opinions about who was to blame in the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

Ms. [Patricia] Glenn (a senior Justice Department mediator who arrived in Cincinnati Wednesday) said her role is to review the underlying issues driving this week's riots so the city can avoid similar scenarios in the future... "If you don't get at the root cause of a problem, it will occur again and again," she said.

Now that's true! If you don't get at the actual cause of the problem, it will repeat. But if you think for one minute that Ms. Glenn will, after much study, report that the "root cause" of the problem is the presence of a large number of Blacks in Cincinnati, then you don't understand the U.S. Government. She will say no such thing. Her job is to come up with a plausible-sounding substitute for the Black disposition for violent behavior and to find ways to make it seem as if it were the result of much study. Her "finding" was found before she ever left Washington. Her work will be directed toward generating smoke to obscure its pre-conceived nature. It isn't as though the right conclusion ("It's race, stupid") were hard to discover empirically; it isn't. The Justice Department itself has published web pages acknowledging that Blacks commit violent crimes much more often than Whites do. I've done it on my Racial Violence Statistics Page. Professor Glayde Whitney has done it. Anybody can do it by checking Statistical Abstract of the United States, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, and US Census 2000 demographic information. But Ms. Glenn won't do it. The obvious will simply evade her notice, as she strenuously searches for a social root cause (such as "racism"). In so doing, Ms. Glenn will be behaving like a clueless coroner who carefully examines the bowel movements of a decapitated corpse in order to discover the cause of death.

I qualify the above slightly because the Bureau of Justice Statistics has been making progress toward racial honesty lately. I will be VERY SURPRISED if Ms. Glenn's unavoidably high-profile report about the causes of the April 2001 riot is accurate about the racial factor in violent crime. I leave open the chance that she might surprise me.

Excerpted from "City leaders face searing scrutiny," by Barry M. Horstman (Cincinnati Post)

For four top Cincinnati officials, the simmering fury over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by police has produced a week when they are "really earning" their public paychecks—and one that could determine how long they continue to do so. Amid multiple investigations into the 15th case of a black male dying at the hands of Cincinnati police since 1995, the four—City Manager John Shirey, Mayor Charlie Luken, Police Chief Thomas Streicher Jr. and Safety Director Kent Ryan—confront the kind of searing scrutiny that comes along infrequently even in such high-profile careers. "Every day's a hard day and a challenge in this job," Shirey said. "But obviously, a situation like this is particularly difficult. That's partly because, you know that whatever happens, the city will take the heat."

At no point was any White person at fault during this episode, unless you count Cincinnati Mayor Luken for hogging the police to himself during the riot and for failing to use the necessary degree of force to smash the Black rioters quickly. But Luken's weakness is not for that reason that "the city will take the heat." No, if the city takes the heat, and probably it will, the blame will be set at the footstep of "White racism." It always is, even with the blame truly belongs to Black racism. To be sure, many Whites (including myself) are racists, whether they will admit it or not. But there was no White racism in the shooting of Timothy Thomas. And White racism did not cause all those Blacks to riot. Racism comes from racial mixing. It does not come from stubborness, or mental defectiveness, or from any cause other than natural human tribal instinct being constantly affronted by racial intermixture.

...Exoneration of officer Stephen Roach likely would widen the chasm already dividing the black community and Streicher's department.

So widen it up all the way by shipping the Blacks back to Africa. Like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both wanted to do. Make them work to pay their own airfare, too. If their ancestors had shipped out 150 years ago, Whites might have borne the costs of the move, but that, you know, was before Blacks started rioting in American cities.

But if charges are brought against Roach—who claims he fired at Thomas because he feared for his life, believing the youth might be armed—police morale could plummet as officers question whether the division's brass is doing enough to insulate them from second-guessing of their split-second, life-and-death decisions.

Yes. And that is what those charges are meant to do.

...The Rev. Damon Lynch III, head of the Cincinnati Black United Front, has already called for the resignations of Shirey, Streicher and Ryan—and predicts that the violent eruption between the police and black community will be a telling test of Luken's leadership. "I think some heads need to roll," Lynch said. "There need to be some resignations on the mayor's desk for the good of the community... This city is sitting on a powder keg and the present power structure is not able to handle it. This is a wake-up call for the mayor. The mayor has to show some true grit right now. This is an early test in April to how the vote will go in November."

Ah, so the Blacks' political threat follows the Blacks' riot. I agree that "heads need to roll." Black heads, that is. Each Black involved in the riot should be punished for his or her crimes to the fullest extent of the law. I recommend a minimum of five years in an Ohio State Penitentiary for anyone who looted or vandalized a place of business, even one as lowly as a hotdog stand. I recommend 20 years to life in prison for anyone who committed an aggravated assault while on the rampage. I recommend the death penalty for any rioter who committed a murder, or who set a fire that resulted in an innocent person's death. When all these things are done, then we can examine whether any city employee might have failed to do all that was required of him during the crisis. And I'd start with Mayor Luken himself. If he is culpable, however, it wasn't because he employed too much force against the Black rioters, but, rather, because he did not employ enough force to stop the riot quickly.

In case the question should arise as to whether the "ambiance" of a riot should reduce the liability attaching to the concomitant crimes: NO. The riot is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. A crime committed during a riot should be considered at least as serious as the same crime committed under other conditions. That is why it is reasonable for government to impose martial law at such times. The only occasion for which government is justified in using military forces against its own citizens is when some of them have banded together to present a large-scale threat to others. A riot, like a civil war, can be such a threat. In fact, a riot is essentially a local civil war.

Riot began as peaceful protest

What eventually turned into rioting Tuesday began about 1 p.m. as a peaceful demonstration at Vine and 13th streets, with a group of about 20 young black men holding homemade signs and urging motorists to honk in support of their cause. Within a half-hour, the group swelled to more than 50 people, who started blocking traffic at times. Police officers closed Vine Street to traffic at Central Parkway.

The "peaceful protest" was, I think, a ruse all along. The "demonstrators" knew that they were going to riot, but since they didn't all arrive at the same time (Blacks aren't punctual and some of them don't know what "synchronizing watches" means) the early ones had to pose as legal peaceful demonstrators until the later ones showed up.

Then: Vine and Green street: As the crowd started moving north, police officers followed. The crowd stopped at the intersection, turned around and people started throwing bottles and garbage back at the officers, who backed up. Findlay Market: The crowd headed toward the Market and then moved south along Race Street. Race and Liberty streets: People in the crowd threw bottles at a police patrol car and motorcycle officer waiting at the traffic light before moving further south. Race and Central Parkway: Realizing that officers are not going to try stopping the crowd, people started running toward downtown. Vandalism started with minor acts such as turning over newspaper boxes and planters. People in the crowd attacked a painted pig statue outside the Shakespeare Arts Festival building.

(The emphasis was added.) Those police officers might as well not have been there, for all the good they did. What were they thinking? That the city belonged to the rioters? That Blacks had been granted a license to commit vandalism and assault? Again, I say: If the police were at all culpable in this matter, then it was through a failure to utilize the required degree of force. Those Blacks could have been, and should have been, met in the street by police just exactly as one army meets an enemy army. What kind of respect do you get when you just watch and don't fight? None. And so Cincinnati got a bit of a trashing.

Here's a sorry tale of White moral malaise for you.

Excerpted from "Business owners are upset that police were elsewhere" by Jennifer Edwards (Cincinnati Post)

Downtown and Over-the-Rhine businesses became victims Tuesday of the city's police woes as more than 200 rioters, mostly young black men, smashed windows, knocked over street vendors' carts, mailboxes and newspaper boxes, and emptied garbage cans along streets. On East Court Street shortly after 3 p.m., one pack of protesters toppled George Psihountakis' hot dog stand in front of the County Administration Building. Psihountakis, who has sold hot dogs downtown for 20 years, complained that deputies stood nearby in a doorway of the county courthouse and watched as vandals attacked his cart but did nothing. However, witnesses said the vandals and protesters heavily outnumbered authorities, who had no choice but to stand back.

''They threw bottles at me! They chased me!'' the elderly man yelled. ''Why do we always have to be the ones who suffer? What is it going to take in this city?''

Hey, he complains like a Jew. In a democratic society, that's a plus. The Aryan man's stoicism doesn't pay off where squeaky wheels get the grease.

After rioters smashed front windows of dozens of businesses on Vine Street downtown and on Main Street in Over-the-Rhine with bricks, garbage bins and frozen soda cans, other merchants grew equally outraged. Several complained that while many police cruisers and officers surrounded City Hall Tuesday, they neglected to protect downtown businesses. ''There's about 200 police cars sitting around City Hall while we're getting our (expletive) kicked here!'' said one furious business owner with smashed-out front windows. He said he did not want his name or the business name printed because he feared retaliation from the city and rioters.

Edwards' article went on for a bit longer, but this is enough to make my point. Indecisiveness by Cincinnati officials, involving a failure to utilize the required force (i.e., military force) to quell a civil disorder, led to severe destruction and harm to residents in parts of the city. Not only that, the officials did nothing substantial to deter future riots of the same kind. The only possible deterrence is for state and local governments to make it clear that to riot is to die.

But where Blacks are concerned, it is difficult to persuade local governments to take effective actions. They know that the US government has fallen under the control of Jews and traitors, and that it will punish strong local efforts to curb Black crime. On the other hand, Ruby Ridge and Waco have convinced many Whites that they don't need to perpetrate anything even approaching a riot in order to bring down a military strike directly from the US government.

It's called "race war." It's been going on for the past 40 years. Whites just happen to represent the side that has not, so far to any significant degree, organized to fight back. Whites who are fed up with Black violence and want to organize can join the National Alliance, P.O. Box 90, Hillsboro, West Virginia 24946.

The pro-Black slant of the coverage of the Cincinnati Post is substantial, but it is nothing compared with that of the Ohio News. Black agitators, both Communist and Muslim, have converged on Cincinnati, and the Ohio News is giving them sympathetic press.

Black Panther Malik Zulu Shabazz, in between Black Power chants, said, "This is not a riot; this is a rebellion." Close, but not quite. Actually, it's part of a 40-year-old race war that usually goes in the disguise of street crime, in which Blacks have consistently been on the offensive, though they posture as "victims of racism" with the copious, mendacious assistance of the Jewish media. See the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for documentation. Although the US government officially adopts the fraudulent position put out by the Blacks and the Jews, it's own crime data proves that interracial violence is mostly (90% or thereabout) Black-on-White, and not the reverse. If that fact has caused police to "oppress" (translation: "arrest") Blacks a bit more than Whites, then it's only natural.

Shabazz brought cheers from a Black crowd inside a church when he did his "Black Power" chanting. "Black Power" is for Blacks what "Sieg Heil" was to the German Nazis. Do you wonder how this fits in with Jesus and universal love and "turn the other cheek"? It doesn't. Blacks don't look at religion that way.

Black Reverend Damon Lynch III said, "Right now we have the world looking at Cincinnati. The world needs to see first of all that Black men know how to stand up and be counted. Stand up for justice. Stand up against oppression." Oh, is that what all those Blacks were doing when they smashed office windows, beat innocent bystanders, looted stores, set businesses on fire, raped women, and such? Standing up for justice, is it? Reverend Lynch would dearly love for you to think that Officer Steve Roach committed an unjust act when he shot a Black fugitive from justice on April 7—but he didn't. He was doing his job. Timothy Thomas was a criminal who would have lived, if he had not run from police. Due to the weak response of the city government to the riot that followed the shooting, the Blacks have become bold, and this Black "tough talk" is a sign of worse things to come. Let that be a lesson to Cincinnati officials.

Just when you thought the behavior of Cincinnati officialdom couldn't get any stupider. . .

"Hate crime" charged

by Kimball Perry (Cincinnati Post)

The first "hate crime" incident stemming from Cincinnati's riots was handed down today when a white Westwood man was accused of shouting racial slurs at a black man and then throwing a brick through his car window. [Emphasis added.]

Let me see if I understand. Two hundred Blacks tear through Cincinnati. They loot stores. They smash windows. They set fire to buildings. They commit countless assaults on White people. The Blacks do all these things while a gaggle of cops looks on without lifting a finger to stop them. And the first "hate criminal" the local county prosecutor finds is a White guy. It sounds insane.

Yep, that's a "hate crime" for you. Small harm, large penalty. Meanwhile, a nigger that cost some White businessman (or his insurance company) a million dollars in property damage, or who gives a White woman syphilis during a rape, gets let off without so much as a slap on the wrist. That's why the TV crews were careful not to send live images. Whites might have recognized some of the rioting Blacks on television.

Just whom does Mike Allen think he's fooling? Black violent crimes against Whites outnumbered White violent crimes against Blacks, during the riot, by a ratio of a thousand to one. And which race gets hit with "hate crime" charges? The White race. Why? Well, let me put it this way: How much guts does it take to "play hardball" with a White man in a city where the White people don't stand together?

White residents of Hamilton County will have to put the fear of reprisal (personal reprisal, not political) into people like Mr. Allen, or else they will just have to put up with being hit with big punishments for small offenses while the Blacks get away with far more serious crimes. When government turns against people, then either the government is corrected or the people are enslaved. One or the other. Which it will be depends more on the character of the oppressed people than on the forces that the government can command. The only thing that will set this situation aright is for Whites to organize themselves MILITANTLY and separately from any connection with their traitorous government. Obviously, Whites can't trust their government to look out for them. As this "hate crime" charge shows, White citizens are on their own, and will have to do without protection from "their" soldiers and "their" police officers. Whites must organize their own groups for defense and for vengeance, not only with respect to rioting Blacks, but also against the political traitors.

How many crimes did you count? The only crime in the above appears to be "...throwing a brick through his window." Getting out of your car is not a crime. Shouting racial epithets is not a crime (not yet). But vandalism is a crime, and rightly so. On the other hand, the vandalism mentioned above was one of the smaller acts of vandalism committed that day in Cincinnati. Blacks committed vandalisms that ran up damage bills of millions of dollars. This White man's vandalism amounted to—what?—fifty bucks?

Note: I said "appears to be." The Jewsmedia are shamelessly dishonest. There isn't much chance that Mr. Carr became angry purely because he saw a Black driving a car. The wording is obviously intended to make you think so, but it's rather implausible. That Black must have done something else (something besides driving a car) to have made Mr. Carr angry. What was it? The media won't say. Why not? Because it might make Mr. Carr's actions seem less reprehensible, especially against a background of hundreds of Blacks running through the city streets doing far more damage than Mr. Carr did. And don't you suppose that at least one of the Blacks, while he was bashing a White person in the head with a brick, might have said something racially insensitive to his victim? How strange that none of them have appeared as "hate criminals" so far.

That whole riot was ethnic intimidation. Both the assaults and the property damage were ethnic intimidation. The Black political threat implied by the presence of a hundred or more police cars defensively ringing City Hall during the riot was ethnic intimidation. Strange how the media can't see that, isn't it? And, judging by the way all the public officials in Cincinnati and Hamilton County are leaping to kiss some nigger ass, the intimidation worked.

Pile it on. Roar a bit, you damned cowardly traitor-swine who pretend to be public servants. If the Whites in your area weren't also cowards, they'd be eating your pork chops right about now. Our Indian-fighting ancestors would pull their hair out in disgust at the spectacle of the White stupidity and cowardice afoot today.

Mother: 'Slap on the wrist'

by Craig Garretson (Cincinnati Post)

Angela Leisure said Monday she will continue to pray and call for peace, despite feeling what she described as ''borderline rage'' at hearing that the police officer who shot and killed her son will face only two misdemeanor charges. The indictments for negligent homicide and obstruction of official business are a ''slap on the wrist'' she said during a press conference immediately after the indictments were announced Monday evening. ''Justice was not served'' by the indictments against Officer Stephen Roach, she said.

I agree that justice was not served. Officer Roach committed no crime.

Roach shot and killed 19-year-old Timothy Thomas as he ran from police officers down a dark Over-the-Rhine alley, April 7. Thomas, who was unarmed, was wanted on 14 misdemeanor warrants for traffic violations. Mrs. Leisure called the indictments against Roach ''ridiculous.''

I agree. The indictments were ridiculous. Officer Roach committed no crime.

''I feel like he was just slapped on his wrist,'' Mrs. Leisure said. ''I don't feel like justice was served... He took a life. Negligence just doesn't cut it for me.'' Although she said she was praying for ''God's justice, not man's justice,'' Mrs. Leisure said a felony charge of murder would have been more appropriate.

I disagree. Officer Roach committed no crime. None whatever. Not even a misdemeanor. Certainly not a felony.

''My son is no longer here,'' Mrs. Leisure said. ''My son will not see his son grow up. My son will not marry his son's mother. My son will not have that career in electronics he wanted. My son will not walk through the door and tell me "I love you lady' and give me a hug. My son will never do these things any more. But that officer... he's still free to go about his daily business. And who's to say it won't happen again? Then what will it be? Will it be negligence again?''

It wasn't "negligence" this time. Officer Roach fired his gun when, in the darkness, it appeared that Timothy Thomas might have been reaching for a weapon. In the dark, it is hard to see clearly, but Officer Roach could not afford to wait until he was absolutely certain that Thomas was unarmed. The next Black criminal that a policeman chases down an alley might indeed be armed. It would not do for a criminal to be afforded the opportunity to shoot first. It is a pity, perhaps, that Angela Leisure lost her son, even though it is doubtful whether he'd have married his son's mother and very doubtful that he'd have succeeded in electronics. But her son ran from the law. Those who choose to run from the law assume ALL the risks of their flight. If a criminal gambles and loses, too bad. But no criminal need be shot in the street by a policeman because there is a 100%-sure way to avoid it: don't run, submit to arrest, cooperate with police. Criminals simply don't have all of the "civil rights" that law-abiding citizens have, including the right not to be arrested by police; it is foolish to pretend that they do.

Three days of rioting and four nights of curfew followed Thomas's death. During the violence, Mrs. Leisure spoke out against the rioting at rallies and at press conferences. On Monday, she again asked people to not turn to violence, despite her feelings of anger and frustration. Mrs. Leisure said Cincinnati will find itself in this situation again - ''maybe even tonight, maybe even right now'' - until its police officers have to take full responsibility for their actions. Mrs. Leisure and her husband, Eric, Timothy Thomas's stepfather, said they will continue to pray for justice.

How full of crap. These Blacks are using the potential for another nigger-riot as a bludgeon to move the political and juridical processes in ways that, legally and morally, they aren't supposed to go. Officer Roach committed no crime, and the grand jury should have found so. And on a larger scale, Cincinnati is being watched, used as a social laboratory, by Jews and Blacks who view Officer Roach's case (and circumstances attaching thereto) as an experiment. What works in this city, this time, will be used again in the future, perhaps in another city.

FBI looking at attacks on whites

by Jennifer Edwards (Cincinnati Post)

The Cincinnati FBI office is investigating three possible hate crimes by black rioters against whites during last month's street violence following a police shooting. FBI spokesman Ed Boldt confirmed today that agents are looking into whether civil rights violations occurred in three cases. He would not, however, reveal the races of those involved or say when the probes began. ''We do have three hate crime cases that were opened based on allegations of incidents arising out of the civil disturbances in the Cincinnati area,'' Boldt said, declining to elaborate. But Vice Mayor Minette Cooper said that Boldt's supervisor, Special Agent Chuck Goodwin, told her the crimes were assaults committed by black rioters against whites.

Three? They could only find three "possible" hate crimes in a riot where 200 Blacks went on a racially-motivated violence spree? And they took their time about finding those three, didn't they? They arrested a White man, Craig Carr, right away.

(Interestingly, "Carr" is also the last name of the two Blacks who murdered four Whites in Wichita, Kansas, on 15 December 2000, which murders the media tried hard to cover up but whoops the National Alliance has members in Wichita. I guess the similarity of names is just a weird coincidence.)

Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen said he is thrilled the FBI is investigating such cases and pledged his office would cooperate fully. ''The FBI has an incredible array of resources that other law enforcement agencies don't have, and we welcome their participation,'' Allen said.

"Thrilled"? Surprised is more like it. The FBI usually fails to notice "hate" among Black violent criminals, the majority of whom do indeed experience racial hate as they commit their crimes. But even with the FBI's anti-White bias in counting hate crimes, the Blacks commit so many of them that their per capita rate of "hate murders" is about four times higher than the corresponding White rate. Of course, if all interracial murders were judged equally likely to be hate-motivated, then the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio for hate murders would be equal to the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio of interracial murders, which is about 16. (This means that the FBI fails to notice hate in 3-out-of-4 cases of Black-on-White murder where hate might reasonably be supposed to exist.)

Rage ran rampant after the April 7 fatal police shooting of Timothy Thomas, 19. The unarmed black man was wanted on 14 outstanding warrants and was being chased by police through Over-the-Rhine when the shooting took place.

Yes, "rage" ran rampant. The violence was the release of racial hatred by 200 Blacks. Every crime that they committed, plus the riot itself, was a "hate crime." Now, really, the category of "hate crime" isn't necessary. It is the invention of Jews who intend to extend it hereafter to cover "speech crimes" of the sort they already have in Germany. The hate crime category is a political category of crime, abused with a strong anti-White bias. That's why only three Blacks were, eventually, investigated for "possible" hate crimes. If 200 Whites had done what the 200 Blacks actually did, then the police would not wait for the FBI to "okay" declaring them all to be hate criminals.

During the ensuing days of unrest, a roving band of rioters smashed windows downtown, burned and looted stores. Some pulled white motorists from their cars and beat them. Television news cameras caught some of the attacks, including rioters yanking Louisville trucker Robert Stearns, 32, from his vehicle while on a route delivering glass. He was kicked and beaten.

So this incident was the one that the TV editors decided to let out of the bag. There were many beatings of Whites during the riot, and many instances of arson, and vandalism, and (according to what I've heard) rapes. And at least some rioters were shooting guns. Make no mistake: the media is covering up more Black violence than it has chosen to reveal, and it revealed as much as it did only to contrive a false appearance of fairness.

The FBI already is investigating a police beanbag shooting during the riots that injured four. And the U.S. Justice Department is investigating the police division's use of force. Stearns' mother said from Louisville today that her son still suffers physically and mentally from the attack. ''He can't comprehend this,'' said Mrs. Stearns, who did not want her first name used. ''He was just doing his job. He was beat for 10 to 15 minutes. They tried to kill him.''

This is not a mystery to a racist. It should not be a mystery to Mrs. Stearns. "The state is a vessel, and the race is what it contains" (Adolf Hitler). Races don't mix well. One country should have only one race in it. When you mix different races into the same society, you are simply asking for trouble.

Roach: A life forever altered
by Jennifer Edwards (Cincinnati Post)

Cincinnati police Officer Stephen Roach entered law enforcement to help people and make a difference, say co-worker and friends. But with the shot that killed Timothy Thomas on April 7 in an Over-the-Rhine alley, his life has been forever altered. Roach has been indicted on two misdemeanor counts of negligent homicide and obstructing official business, charges that carry up to nine months in jail.

That's a shame. Officer Roach is a good cop. He isn't guilty of "negligent homicide" because he wasn't negligent. He was prudent. He shot a petty criminal who was trying to evade justice. A criminal who flees should assume all the risks of his flight, including the chance that a policeman might shoot him. The indictment of Officer Roach was not only ridiculous; it is also a threat to social order. When effective police actions are criminalized, the police will no longer be effective. This isn't what the public would normally want. One must assume that there has been some effort to corrupt or (more likely) to confuse those who served on the grand jury that indicted Officer Roach.

In the four years Roach, 27, of Harrison, has been in the Cincinnati police division, he has earned a reputation for being courteous, respectful, professional and quiet, co-workers say. Police Chief Thomas Streicher has credited him for making sound, mature decisions, and he is well-liked by co-workers and supervisors. Commended in his personnel file for having a "history of thinking things through," and showing "tremendous promise," Roach once cooly apprehended a car that contained about 30 weapons.

Good, assuming that the guns weren't the legal property of the person who was in possession. A man has a right to own as many guns as he wants (Second Amendment), and no law may abridge the right to keep and bear arms. When police confiscate guns that are in the possession of their owner, they DO commit a crime: theft. Their official position as police officers would merely aggravate such a theft; it wouldn't justify or mitigate it. There is no such thing as a valid law that permits police to take a gun from its owner, when that owner has not committed a felony. (Possession of a gun in defiance of a constitutionally invalid gun-control law doesn't count.) I will assume that Officer Roach nabbed a car filled with STOLEN guns and that the remark by Chief Streicher was the praise that it was obviously intended to be.

"Like any officer involved in a police intervention death, it takes an emotional toll on an officer. This is something that stays with you for the rest of your life," said Keith Fangman, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Most officers would never even in their worst nightmares go through what Officer Roach has experienced and will continue to experience for a long time to come." After meeting with a police psychologist today, Roach could return to police desk duty from paid administrative leave.

I don't think that Officer Roach should be ashamed of doing his duty. A bit of this psychic trauma thing might be exaggerated, or a play for public sympathy. Because of the unjustified criminal charges against Officer Roach, he has my sympathy. But this rigamarole about bad dreams is unmanly. However, I can understand that it has become politically advisable to pretend to possess an extraordinary level of "sensitivity" in a situation like the one he is in. He'd best be careful that this "rending of the garments" isn't construed as an admission of guilt.

Roach earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Dayton in 1996 before entering law enforcement like his father, Dennis, who has been an officer in Oxford, Ohio, for 20 years. "He grew up around that and wanted to be just like his dad," recalled Doug Krause, Roach's football coach at Talawanda High School. "The only way you could possibly condemn him in any fashion is if you just don't know him. He doesn't have a prejudiced bone in his body."

Ah, yes. I wondered when the media would get around to equating racism with prejudice. Officer Roach might be neither racist or prejudiced. Officially, both qualities are considered to be bad things, even when they aren't confused with each other (as is often the case). Racism is, in fact, the opposite of prejudice. Prejudice occurs in advance of experience with another race. Racism occurs in response to experience with another race. The most racist White people are those who have the most experience with non-Whites, and particularly with Blacks. Many police officers are racists secretly, but few of them are prejudiced. I'd be pleased if I were to learn that Officer Roach is a racist, but for all I know he might be just another addle-brained multiculturalist sap who got caught in a political snare.

Roach's wife, Erin, a Cincinnati police dispatcher, is on paid administrative leave due to stress. In radio interviews this week, Mrs. Roach said they received death threats, have moved twice and are living out of a suitcase. She said she wished her husband would quit the Cincinnati department: "I'm worried about him; he's worried about me."

Heh. For years, I've gotten death threats in my email. I don't have a telephone at home. But so far, not one of my self-proclaimed assassins has showed up to fight me, gun against gun. In a multi-racial society, you soon learn to take death threats in stride. You'll know when someone's serious when you hear gunfire, assuming they miss with the first shot or two. Then you shoot back. Until then, you don't worry.

She noted the shooting was a tragedy for both families and said if she could talk to Thomas' mother, Angela Leisure, she would tell her that her husband didn't see a black man when he chased her son. He saw a man running from the police who was wanted on warrants, she said. "He was doing his job," Mrs. Roach stressed.

Whereas Mrs. Roach is right about her husband's actions, she evidently does not understand the social dynamics in play. Angela Leisure's negroid intelligence is (nevertheless) high enough that she knows that her son was shot for running from police and, while running, giving a policeman the idea that he was in danger. Angela Leisure knows that her son was not shot simply because he was Black. She KNOWS this, and yet she is determined to inflict as much retribution as she can on the cop who shot him. She would burn down all of Cincinnati, if that were within her power and if it would get her the revenge that she craves. Mrs. Roach's failure to appreciate the workings of the savage mind is common among White people, whose capacities for abstract thought, and for the self-effacing, civilized behavior that abstract thought leads to, are much greater than those of Blacks.

The mood has been somber at District One, where Roach has worked since he was hired. "It's a very sad day to me," said Sgt. Jeff Hunt, the supervisor in charge of District One's criminal apprehension team, which Officer Roach worked on. "This is an exceptional officer. We are entrusted to have the authority to take someone's life if we have to. It's an awesome responsibility. If a mistake has been made, we are held very accountable. It happens so fast, and you're trained over and over to react so quickly, and you have to."

Police officers should certainly be held accountable for any unjustified killing that they do. When a policeman kills someone for any reason other than his official duty, it should be considered at least as much a crime than it would be if a common citizen had done it. I say "at least" because the police are entrusted with power that, if habitually misused, would wreck the whole country. But, this time, the killing was justified. A policeman chased a criminal down a dark street. The criminal was obviously trying to evade arrest. The policeman thought that the criminal might be reaching for a gun, so he fired his gun first. This is a reasonable act by a police officer. Officer Roach committed no crime, not even a misdemeanor, not even negligently. Timothy Thomas could have submitted to arrest and lived to face a judge and a jury. He chose to run and paid the price. The Grand Jury should have declared that to be the end of the story, but apparently there are political considerations (the nigger riot for instance) that caused them to issue indictments.

"This is kind of a bad time for the Cincinnati police and officers all around the country," District Two Officer Tom Rackley said. "But it's still the belief of every officer that most of the public is still behind us. We think everything will come out in court and work out for the best."

Actually, I'm not "behind" this particular police department. I'm "behind" good, sensible principles of social order. It just so happens that the accused police officer is in the right.

Race gap widens in Over-the-Rhine
by Cincinnati Post Staff

A century ago, Over-the-Rhine had 90,000 residents, mostly blue-collar German descendants. Today, there are only 7,638 residents, 77 percent black and 23 percent white.

The Blacks move in, the crime rate shoots up, and most of the Whites move out. The economy of the area collapses, and the people who remain become poor. The pattern is familiar. It has repeated thousands of times in America. How clear does it need to be that the problem is race? Blacks simply are not fit to live in a White society. They don't do well in competition with us for civilized pursuits, and they blame our "racism" (our reaction to their ways) although their problems really result from their own intellectual and behavioral shortcomings.

If those original German residents had successfully resisted the Black invasion of their neighorhood, today Over-the-Rhine would still be a prosperous and peaceful community of White folk. Alas, Whites aren't allowed to resist Black invasions, and this has caused one area after another to succumb to Black rot.

Curious fact: According to a Cincinnati Post article by Craig Garretson, the city has a police officer named "Robert Heinlein."

White Americans seem to be waiting for a hero to ride up in knight's armor and wage a war to set them free. But that has already been tried, and the grandparents of today's White Americans foolishly smashed them, the German knights, who were were trying to free all Whites from a tyranny that has since clamped down over all the world. There are no heroes anymore, except ourselves. If we don't free ourselves from the triple menace of non-White violence, White traitors, and the international banking system then, very simply, we won't ever be free. Never. And our slavery will daily grow worse and more burdensome. Our children's bondage will be worse than our own. Never has so much danger existed together with so much apathy about it. We must fight. You don't want to fight because you might get hurt, but the longer you wait the smaller your chances of victory will be. The longer you wait, the bolder and stronger the Blacks will grow. The longer you wait, the more powerful the traitors will become. You shrug your shoulders today; you'll be wailing tomorrow and asking yourself why somebody didn't do something while there was still time. "Somebody" is YOU.

You, the White doctor: your racial duty is a higher obligation than your Hippocratic oath.

You, the White lawyer or police officer or sheriff: your racial duty is a higher obligation than your duty to enforce the written laws.

You, the White soldier or military officer: your racial duty is more to be obeyed than your orders from the government.

You, the White clergyman: your racial duty is more sacred than your church's doctrines of peace and brotherhood.

You, the White working man: your racial duty is more important than your paycheck.

You, the White businessman: your racial duty is more important than your profits.

You, the White parent: if ever there should be any conflict, your racial duty is more important even than your own child, lest all White children one day have no world fit to live in and no future worth living for.

Jerry's Posts Index Page
Jerry's Aryan Battle Page