Race & Crime In America

.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Time to bury the tired narrative,tired narrative and uncover stories not typically heard,
but stories that need to be heard, right or wrong, life or
death. This isn't your typical lawshow. This is Big Angry Law with

(00:23):
Charles Big Angry ANIMs on kPr ZN Now Charles ANIMs, We'll good anything,
ladies and gentlemen, thank you forlistening tonight. This is in fact
Charles Adams nine fifty am KPRC.I want to start off by talking about

(00:46):
the concept of hate crimes in America. Those are typically crimes that were committed
because of someone's bigotry directed at animmutable characteristic. But what we're seeing is
the selective enforcement of those crimes dependingon who was targeted. Sometimes even we

(01:17):
are seeing investigations into non crimes becauseof who is targeted. There's allegedly a
horrible situation in Idaho where some youngstudent athletes from the University of Utah were
walking out of a restaurant. Theywere staying in court Alane while playing Gonzaga

(01:40):
in Spokane, Washington, on theother side of the state line. But
because hotels were scarce and Spokane therewas some sort of agreement with the NCUBA
to allow them to stay, youknow, thirty forty minutes away in the
nearby now. Idaho has long hada history of being a hotbed for extremism

(02:07):
and more white supremacy related there isyou know, many of the stories about
this incident we're about to discuss mentionedthat Idaho was the birthing place of the
Aryan Brotherhood. I don't know ifit's true or not. And once the
media decides to start regurgitating a talkingpoint, oftentimes they do not either,

(02:30):
but very well could be. Andthe allegations, which there's nothing to suggest
a reason why these women would belying, is that while they're walking out,
someone rolled down a window, readan engine of a pickup truck and
yelled a racial pejorative and then loopback around a little while later and yelled

(02:54):
at twice and read the engine again. There is no allegation that any threats
were made or that the engine wasrevved in a menacing manner when directing the
vehicle at them, as if theywere going to use the vehicle as a
weapon. Instead, it just soundslike this racist said ugly things and then

(03:17):
drove off. The local police andthe FBI are investigating it as a hate
crime. Now it sounds awful.It sounds like some despicable, repugnant,
abhorrent human was trying to bully someyoung student athletes, and it is absolutely

(03:45):
unacceptable, not a crime. Infact, it's something specifically that must be
protected by the First Amendment, becauseif you don't protect the worst speech,
then you don't really protect any speech. That is not to say that the
person doesn't deserve to be outed andhave personal, real world consequences for being

(04:09):
a despicable racist. But what wedon't need is the government investigating everyone someone
sometimes every time someone uses a racialpejorative. Was discussing we filmed some Fox
face offs and I was discussing thiswith Kwanell today at Lair next week,

(04:31):
and of course he was all forthis investigation. I mean the point that
he frequently refers to me as youknow, mayonnaise man, or he calls
me a grand dragon of the KuKlux Klan, and just a number of
other ugly terms he directs at Caucasianpeople, not because there's any substance to

(04:55):
the to the allegation, especially theinvolvement in the Klan, and how he
would feel that the government investigated thoseugly things as a hate crime. He
says those things because of my immutablecharacteristics that he oftentimes directs sweeping criticisms of
white people that aren't individualistic but justgeneralized hate manger. And the line he

(05:21):
drew is about the historical impact ofugly words directed at African Americans versus ugly
words directed at Caucasians, which isof course parsing him sirt ugly words that
don't include a threat of bodily harmthat is serious and taken seriously by the

(05:45):
person that hears it. Those aren'tcrimes, right, They're just ugly words.
And in fact, the First Amendmentsays that the government cannot intrude upon
that and make it a crume.But right now there's a minot party of
voices on our Supreme Court that arepro discrimination and would also reconcile making mere

(06:05):
words of crime. We also seea sweeping embrace of those who are arguing,
especially in academia, for an endto the free speech clause in the
first moment of the United States Constitution. I see that as a bedrock,

(06:26):
a stone in the firmament, thefoundation of what this grand experiment was built
upon. And I know that colorfullanguage is a little bit verbose, and
it seems I don't know sermony,but it's absolutely true. We have to
protect ugly speech because of course it'sa slippery slope. And when we decide

(06:50):
that this sweeping criticism, I mean, I think we've all decided that it's
ignorant. Well, not everyone,because a lot of people engage in it.
But right now we're in a timein America where it's only okay typically
if it's directed at white cis genderedChristians, Well it's not okay, ever,
But it also should not be acrime, ever, not if it's

(07:13):
directed at me, not if itcriticizes me. Because I wake up every
day with my shiny, bald,peach complexed head, with my historical privilege
of being raised by a single motherand working my way through school. I
just don't understand or the fact thatI'm cisgendered and don't appreciate the privilege that

(07:35):
I like to have sex with membersof the opposite sex, especially the one
that is upstairs right now, orthat I have a nuclear family or with
a wife and children. Those areall my I don't know, it's all
absurd. But if someone wants tocriticize me for that, go ahead,

(07:57):
not a crime. Way back injust a moment, Big angry Laws with
Charles Adams on kp r C Ninefifteen. Um calling to the barrel,

(08:26):
it sounds the wars declared a battle. Come down, run, the calling
to the unnewer come out of thecover, I by the girl, un
the calling that don't look us phonybiddle mayors betting us un carling. See

(08:48):
we ain't got the swing set forthe rain of the concert fo the icy
comic the sun sim in melt down. Expected do we do to theation?

(09:11):
So we went to the last breaktalking about hate crimes and this horrible incident
in Utah and why I well inIdaho involving Utah the basketball players who should
not have been spoken to in suchan ugly manner, And I wish that

(09:33):
someone would have went and dragged thatguy out of his truck and slapping around
a bit. But I don't wantthe government to do it. I do
want and my feeling generally on hatecrimes is if the underlying action is a
crime, then the hateful motivation shouldgo. It should be a factor in

(09:54):
the sentencing of the perpetrator of thatcrime. I don't think we needed to
manufacture new crimes, especially that haveoften been reduced to thought crimes or used
as a vehicle to prosecute people asecond time or even a third time based
on the separate sovereign doctrine, whichallows the Feds to come in and basically

(10:20):
engage in double jeopardy. I thinkall of that is absurd, and it's,
in my opinion, which the SupremeCourt disagrees with, contrary to the
defining principles of this nation. Ithink when we you know, the most
glaring I think, of course,was when you had the officers that brutally

(10:45):
beat Rodney King. They were triedin a suburban area because clearly there was
a decision to throw the prosecution bythe prosecutors in California in the early nineties.
But when they were found not guilty, then the federal government stepped in
and prosecuted them for civil rights violations. But all arising from the very same

(11:07):
incident, and the math there forpeople that don't understand it is that the
Supreme Court has said, because thefederal government of state governments are separate sovereigns,
that jeopardy did not attach, andthe prohibition and proscription of double jeopardy
does not apply. That's why yousee people, you know, the George
Floyd, where the officers were chargedand prosecuted independently for both civil rights violations

(11:35):
and for state crimes. And thenthere another example of I think much like
the prosecution of hate crimes, wherethere was a horrifying injustice designed to be
to meet the demands of a politicallycorrect society. And that is not to
say that what happened to George Floydwas an also horrifying injustice that required consequence.

(12:01):
However, you had one officer withhis knee on the back and the
shoulder of George Floyd. That theI believe the second autopsy, not the
second autopsy, but the second examinationof the findings led to a ruling that

(12:22):
it was asphyxiation caused by the compression, which is a very real thing.
I've studied this in my legal practicein separate incident, and it most certainly
can occur. There is equally,not equally, but there's a significant possibility

(12:43):
that the ingestion of narcotics played intoit. But I remain convinced that from
my examination of the documents that that'show he died, that the compression on
his back and shoulder cane, alongwith medical conditions that he had. But
you've got to take your victim asyou find them. You can't say,

(13:03):
oh, well he only died becausehe had blockages and other issues or a
lifetime. No, I mean hewas alive. And if he died because
that pressure was put on there,well that's what killed him. But what
didn't kill him was the two younger, the rookie and the training officers that
were holding him lower. But alsothere's the trainee for the officer that was

(13:30):
convicted of the murder, pointed outthe need to roll him on his side,
and while the Asian officer that wasblocking the people filming, well he
wasn't doing anything but standing in betweenpeople filming and the officer that was compressing
him. And all of this wasafter, of course, he refused to

(13:52):
be arrested. He crawled through thecar. There was all this kind of
nonsense. He ended up on theground, and well, I mean you
can't. You can't, especially whenyou have other officers say hey man,
we should stop, we should There'sabsolutely no question in my mind that George
flood was victimized by an angry officer, frustrated that he was dealing with this

(14:16):
probably drunk and high man that wasrefusing to cooperate and calmly go to jail
for possibly passing counterfeit money. Butjust because someone does that doesn't mean you
can just stay on their back untilyou can press all the air and cause
them to go into cardiac arrest anddie. There's a consequence to that.

(14:37):
But because of the political motivations ofthe Attorney General of the State of Minnesota,
you had other officers of color,I believe all three of them,
maybe no two of the three,who had their lives absolutely ruined for merely
doing their jobs, not once,but twice because of the separate sovereign doctor.

(15:05):
And you also saw America decide tobe out a fire a man that
did. And I don't think it'severy excies. I don't think, oh,
because he committed a home invasion andput a gun to a pregnant woman's
stomach, that his death was meaninglessor there shouldn't be a legal consequence for

(15:28):
his murder. Absolutely, Absolutely,the officer I'm not naming him because who
cares his comeback. Absolutely, hekilled George Floyd. But three other officers
saw their lives ruined, especially therookie who was I mean the murderer was
his field training officer, and hedid speak up. They all saw their

(15:50):
lives ruined and be sentenced to prisonbecause they were out doing their job,
having to deal with a frustratingly drunkhigh man who was refusing, who was
engaged probably in a crime and refusingto cooperate, and a man that has
a history of criminality. And whatwe don't need to do is we don't

(16:14):
need to construct new crimes. Right, it would be enough to prosecute the
officer that killed him, period,and to do it with an effort to
win. Like the big thing inRodney King is part of the prosecution of
the officers is they were It's veryclear that the state was trying not to
win. Well, that shouldn't happen, and of course the FEDS need to

(16:37):
step in when their state, youknow, murders in the Deep South during
Jim Crow, there was corruption.It was a failure to do their job.
But how does that I mean,when you look at the prohibition of

(16:57):
double jeopardy, it's very difficult toreconcile it with the separate sovereign doctrine.
We also need to reconcile that thecrimes where a racial motivation is assumed white
man does something war to person ofcolor, and that's the headline every single

(17:21):
time, every single time there's beenstudies that are north, that's the headline.
But we also have a great numberof crimes where racial identity is suppressed,
and we're not having a robust discussionabout the realities of violent crime in
America right now. In fact,if you were just read the mainstream media,

(17:44):
you would have an incredible misimpression aboutwhat crime is in America. Now.
There's an argument for that right becauseracists use it as justification for racism,
But I personally think truth matters.You're listening. You're listening to a
big angry law on k p rC nine fifty. I bet a buddy,

(18:27):
listen to the music tack thinking thatlisten that you said, that's that
I don't want to Jack Dunny,that little data, Duny the flab knowing
do you see down in the placeyou said a count cattle, hen said,

(18:56):
Listen to the propping dadda, listento the latest sad of this.
All Right, So we're talking aboutpolitical correctness and its intersection with the criminal
justice system in America in the twentytwenties, and I think that what we're

(19:18):
witnessing is an inappropriate interplay between newAmerican thought policing as to what is politically
correct and largely that stuff's right.And it's not okay to be a racist,
right, But it's not okay tobe a racist no matter who the
target of your racism is. Like, I straightently disagree with the concept that,

(19:42):
oh, I check this box,so I can't be a bigot.
I check this box, so Ican't be racist because I'm not empowered because
power is both macro and micro.If you, like me, attend a
public school as a child that wasmajority non white, you're not the empowered

(20:06):
person just because you happen to beborn with all your white privilege. It
just was poor rent house white privilege. Right. But also the knee jerk
media and governmental response that race isthe motivation when it's one thing, but

(20:27):
it's not the motivation when it's theother. And let's talk about it specifically
with some recent incidents. Right.So, in Detroit, Michigan, a
twenty five year old woman recently pledguilty to a misdemeanor assault and an eighteen
month probation. I don't understand theplea. Okay, let me describe the
assault. A twenty five year oldwoman walked up to a ten year old

(20:48):
girl who she had no prior contactwith and had had no negative interaction with
it all, and then slammed thatten year old girl head into a glass
display at a shopping mall. Andof course that wasn't enough. That after
the violent assault, it is allegedthat she smiled and laughed at the kid.

(21:18):
That everyone agrees that the assault wasunprovoked. I promise you you could
look at a dozen articles about theinitial incident or the plea this week,
and none of them, not asingle one than I have found, makes
any mention of the race of eitherparty. Now that's strange because there's no

(21:48):
effort to question the motive. Butmore importantly, there's also no effort to
condemn an entire race of people orto criticize a race of people because of
this individual incident. And I'll harkenback to what the media narrative portrayed as
a white man murdering a Michael Jacksonimpersonator on the subway in New York.

(22:12):
This was a while back, picturesof a man dressed up like Michael Jackson,
younger, nice looking character, butof course that wasn't what happened.
Now the question is whether or notusing a restraint to the point where it

(22:33):
caused someone to get asphyxiated was murder, which typically it is right, or
whether it was justified because this manwho was just riding the subway going where
he's going, was him and therest of the passengers in his vehicle were
being aggressively threatened by a deranged manwho had been abandoned by his family,
who all stowed up after his death, but abandoned by his family and had

(22:59):
committed scores and scores of crimes inand around the New York subway system.
It was no longer and had notbeen for many years, of Michael Jackson
in persenter. In fact, hewas just a crazed criminal. Now does
that mean it's it was okay tochoke him in a manner that cost him
his life. No, it doesnot. But the way the media framed

(23:25):
it was absolutely dishonest because of politicalcorrectness and the way the media framed this
attack in Michigan, where this womanwas allowed to probation. I think she
did four days a time serve creditand an eighteen eighteen month probation. When
you attack, when an adult attacksa child, that is child abuse,

(23:47):
and it is a felony in everystate in this union. But it was
reduced to misdemeanors. I mean,one, probably the job these statistics,
but two, despite the media attention, prosecutors didn't care. Law enforcement didn't
care, as oh to hell withthis kid, And there must certainly was

(24:07):
no examination by the media or thestate whether or not the motive for this
random attack was racialized. In fact, the decision instead was to not mention
it at all, to ignore theracial implications, and typically that is done.
The justification of that is that,well, we're making an effort not

(24:30):
to perpetuate harmful narratives. Well,that, of course is absolute nonsense.
In fact, what we should bedoing is we should be looking for truth,
because truth matters, narratives don't.And even what is considered right wing

(24:57):
media publications the New York Post stillsubscribe to this let's minimize race unless we
can basically make an argument that whitepeople are awful and as Ronald McDaniel found
out, or whatever the hell hername is, maybe we'll play some close

(25:18):
next segment that there is a trueliability for sounding like a conservative in public
spaces and people will come after you. But I want to this article in
the post witness to fatal NYC subwayshoves says deranged career criminal timed it perfectly
and pushed with all his might.Okay, the twenty four year old murderer

(25:38):
was a man named Carlton McPherson.Been arrested eight times, four of them
sealed. The family says they havebeen making every effort to get this man
mental health treatment while he was spiralingout of control and found no takers.

(25:59):
Right our government asleep at the wheel. But he shoved a man in his
fifties into the path of a movingtrain and killed him. And well,
let's read some of the quotes forthe witnesses. He was walking, scoping
out the area, looking back andforth everywhere, and as the train was
approaching, he just snuck behind theguy and just cocked back and pushed him

(26:22):
with like all his might. Theguy just like flew onto the tracks.
And I didn't find some pictures ofthe victim, Jason Voltz, fifty four
year old man, and he wasincredibly slight, quiet, by descriptions,
man that lived alone in the bronx. Now, I didn't find any of

(26:47):
those pictures in the media stories aboutthis incident. I also found no mention
of Carlton McPherson's race in the articles. Now there are pictures of him angry,
young black man, and Jason Voltzis of middle aged, a couple
of years older than me, workadaywhite man on his way to work.

(27:11):
There were six officers on the platform, but they claimed that there was nothing
was unexpected. What I can't reconcilewith that is the description of McPherson's behavior
before the strike. It was,you know, it looked like to many

(27:36):
of the witnesses that he was lookingfor a fight. Not one said and
you know, it didn't really looklike he was troubled or anything out of
the ordinary. He just looked angry, like a regular angry kid. Well,
why why would mister McPherson be soangry that he would just shove a
guy in front of a moving trainand kill him guy just sitting there waiting

(27:59):
for his train to go to work. Well, don't you think that both
the media and law enforcement should beinvestigating that motive? And maybe it's the
fact that we're barraging the world withacademic publications and articles. You could just
google the evils of whiteness and you'dget a lot. If you googled the

(28:22):
evils of any other race, whatyou would get as a lecture, not
applause, not a circle jerk ofaffirmation. White people are bad. People
are bad, not all people.Some people that badness has nothing to do
with the color of their skin.And it wasn't good when America decided that
black people were bad and celebrated depressionof black people. But it's also not

(28:47):
good, as we tell the craziesof this world. They acted, Oh,
well, well, I didn't meanwhite people generally. Hell, I'm
white, Yes you did. Youwanted the applause, you wanted the attention,
and it's absolutely repugnant. We'll bebacked. You're listening, were listening
to a big angry law on KPRC. Day, I will wall and I

(29:15):
will play. But the day aftertwo day, I will start and I

(29:37):
will start. Why can't I getjust want to kiss? Why can't I
get just want to kiss? Giveme something that I would to miss?

(29:59):
B hands kiss? Why get justwant to? Why can't get? You
just want to? S This songquickly gets sing appropriate for talk radio,
but that is added up by theviolent fems. Charles Adams is a Big
anger Radio nine to fifty am KPRC, Real Texas Real Talk. Now.

(30:23):
We've been talking about crime and mediacharacteration of crime, and the intersection of
racial motive, racist motivations for crimeand how it impacts both sentencing and media
attention and prosecution, and who isinvestigating the crimes. Now, if you
look at twenty twenty three murders inNew York City, we were talking about

(30:48):
a murder of a man just waitingfor his train. If you will look
at murders committed by African Americans,of black people murdered are murdered by black
people. Thirty percent of Latinos murderedare murdered by black people. Sixty nine

(31:12):
percent of Latinos are murdered by otherLatinos, the majority just much like the
majority of blacks, are murdered byblacks. White people forty four percent of
white people, which is the largestchunk of white people, are murdered by

(31:33):
black people, which defies the standardof crime which is usually racially and socioeconomically
images. So the largest chunk ofwhite people that are murdered in New York
City are white people being an interracialcrime where their murderer is black. Thirty

(31:53):
nine percent of Asians are murdered byblack people people three percent are murdered of
the aggregate number of murders. Right, the white murderers, of their aggregate

(32:14):
number, they thirty seven percent ofthe people they kill are white, six
percent are Asian, one percent ofLatino, and three percent are African American.
Of the aggregate number of Hispanic murderers, sixty nine percent are Latino,
they're victims, nineteen percent are white, six percent or Asian, and nineteen

(32:36):
percent or black. Of the aggregatenumber of Asian murderers, fifty percent are
Asian and one percent of those areblack. Right, and these are the
aggregate when you take the aggregate numberof murderers, the portion of those murders,

(33:00):
the slice of that murder pie isthose numbers. What is glaring about
these twenty twenty three numbers? LikeI said, I mean, from the
most part, Asians hardly murder anyoneright, but those that do are the
majority of the majority of Asians beingmurdered are being murdered by other Asians.

(33:22):
The largest chunk the majority of Latinosare being murdered that are victimized by murder
are being murdered by other Latinos,And the majority of blacks are being murdered
by other blacks. However, theanomaly is that white people, if they're
going to be murdered, they aremore often murdered by black people in New

(33:43):
York City than anyone else, whichis strange because that defies the way it
is traditionally been. Now there's noone engaging in sweeping studies to figure out
the why, to figure out what'sgoing on. I mean, I'll tell
you what's going on is that wehave fueled this narrative of white people being

(34:08):
an awful that has given a greatnumber of criminals a rationalization for committing violence
directed at white people. And thishas been fueled places like Princeton and Harvard,
where the elite academics, scholars orwriting books that if you're read them,

(34:30):
you would just assume that being bornwhite meant you were born as an
awful person that was faded to doawful, awful things. And there are
a great number of people that believethat we should impoverish a whole new generation
of white young adults pushed into theback of the line for just about anything

(34:52):
because of these historical grievances. AndI will say that's insane, and that
moist certainly does nothing but create morebitterness and more animosity, And those numbers
are insane. And what we shouldbe doing is we should be teaching everyone

(35:20):
that it is awful to judge peopleby the color of their skin period.
And in fact, despite me goingthrough these very real statistics, because if
you don't talk about real data,and when I'm arguing with this quantity,
that's the white man statistics. Nothey're not. That's absurd. That's just

(35:42):
you not wanting to discuss truth.But you don't fix problems by ignoring truth,
or you most certainly don't fix themby trying to push untrue narratives that
are politically correct. Because what youshould be doing when you talk about these
numbers, as you should say,hey, but even assuming all these actual

(36:05):
numbers are actually in fact, allthe studies suggest that people are most often
their race is incorrect. It's almostthe default that is white, and that
the already white low numbers for aviolent crime would be even lower if the
data was more accurate. Of course, also in the last ten years,
we've seen an effort to try tomask a violent crime by reclassifying it,

(36:30):
and I mean something touted in thedisc Attorney Alvin Bragg of Manhattan's Day one
memo, if robbery doesn't use agun, it's not a robbery, it's
just a theft. Someone threatens tokill you with a knife, Although taking
the money out of your register that'snot theft. That's monstrous robbery. But
that's just the new effort of paintingfalse portraits about the realities of American crime.

(36:54):
But assuming all of the data isaccurate, which it largely is,
you still can't use it justifying racism, because while there's a larger percentage of
black males that are violent criminals andthe total population, it's still an incredibly

(37:15):
small percentage, and to blame everyblack male for that would be abhorrent racism,
and absolutely would. Just because youwere born with a dark complexion doesn't
mean you're responsible for what other peopledo with that same complexion. The very
argument is horrified, But it doesn'tdo any good to just ignore the issues

(37:40):
of race because you don't want toperpetuate false narratives. Needs to be discussed,
the truth needs to be discussed,and most certainly painting false portraits like
this conversation I had with Kwantell earliertoday where you suggested that there are these

(38:00):
roving gangs of white men just beatingup black people in bars all across America.
It's talking about the sucker punch ofU former ut quarterback National championship Vince
Young. It was caught on video. It's just simply not true, but
people would believe it. Looking atthe media, you would also believe.

(38:23):
You know, we had a lotof police officers killed in the line of
duty this week, and you wouldbelieve that they're just out running around rounding
people up to kill them, especiallypeople of color, which of course isn't
true. There are plenty, there'splenty of bad policing out there that needs
to be corrected, and there needsto be more oversight. But the murder

(38:45):
problem isn't isn't the police who arefar more often it's the victim of murder.
I don't know, this is anotherpoint of this radio show. I
just think we should be having morehonest conversations about issues in America.