Connect with us

Everything

Orlando cops stop only black state attorney; it was perfectly legal so what is her problem?

Published

on

It would be interesting to find out if Ayala was ever stopped before, and if it was by white, or African-American officers.

The Orlando police department pulled over Aramis Ayala, the only black state attorney elected in Florida’s history. The stop was incident-free, professional, courteous, and quick.

It was also completely lawful. Here’s the video, from the Orlando PD.

“Although the traffic stop appears to be consistent with Florida law,” Ayala told CNN. “[My] goal is to have a constructive and mutually respectful relationship between law enforcement and the community.”

There was no evidence in the video of personal disrespect.

As expected, the Orlando Police Department defended its officers–what they needed defense from is unclear.

The Orlando Police Department allows the running of tags “for official business only,” a practice “done routinely on patrol,” the agency said in a statement.

“In regards to the video, which was released by the Orlando Police Department last month, the officers stated the tag did not come back as registered to any vehicle. As you can see in the video, the window tint was dark, and officers would not have been able to tell who, or how many people, were in the vehicle,” the agency said.

The Tampa Bay Times checked with a local attorney, who said “I didn’t see anything wrong.” He added:

…If had to defend the case, he would have a hard time there was any type of discrimination against Ayala. He said the briefness of the interaction, as well as the explanation of the stop, shows that the officers acted reasonably, and previous U.S. Supreme Court cases have held it’s “objectively reasonable” for officers to run tags.

“It would be very difficult for me to argue that this was an illegal stop,” he said.

So, legally–and Ayala is a lawyer–there was nothing wrong. So Ayala must be referring to something else. Something deeper.

I believe the deeper thing is African-Americans being stopped for no reason, no allegation of wrongdoing, and approached by officers in their car. There’s a moment of uncertainty there. Is this going to go well or poorly? Is this going to be a Philando Castile situation?

The police are also dealing with their own private internal debate. A nondescript car with a tag that comes back “blank.” It could have been a computer data glitch. It could have been something nefarious. Police never know–it’s a hazard of the job.

“What was the tag run for?” Ayala asked. And that’s routine. Legally, police have every right to pull anyone over for anything dealing with their license plate and registration. If the color doesn’t match, or the officer thinks the tag has been moved to a different vehicle, or there are warrants on the owner, they can stop someone.

(In an aside, the officer’s “really dark” window comment was unnecessary and likely spoken out of fear of being accused of an illegal stop. Better to have too many reasons, but in this case, he had more than enough.)

No harm no foul.

But there is always potential harm, and a potential foul. Say, for instance, Ayala was armed and her pistol became visible while she was handing her license over. State attorney or not, officers might have a reason to be spooked. Or should they?

The experience of African-Americans in America dealing with police (especially white police) officers is one of tension. Sometimes imperceivable, sometimes in-your-face. I think it’s right for Ayala to work with officers, and with the African-American community, to reduce that tension.

But is she doing that, or just taking advantage of a situation that was bound to eventually happen in her job. It would be interesting to find out if Ayala was ever stopped before, and if it was by white, or African-American officers.

Her stated goal of a “constructive and mutually respectful relationship between law enforcement and the community” is one we should all agree with. That there have been instances where that relationship has been neither constructive nor mutually respectful is beyond argument.

Ayala said, “I look forward to sitting down to have an open dialogue with the Chief of Orlando Police Department regarding how this incident impacts that goal.”

But why didn’t Ayala tell CNN that she also wanted to sit down with her community in an open conversation? She handled the stop well, but many in a similar situation might react poorly.

In her 2016 campaign for the 9th Judicial Circuit State Attorney position, Ayala told Orlando-Rising,

As a state attorney, I will be serving the entire circuit. We live in a very multi-cultural community,” she said. “I want to be the best candidate.”

Also, this:

Ayala is basing her campaign in part on her belief that the Office of the State Attorney needs to do more than prosecute criminals, it needs to step out into the community and be a voice, an advocate and a bridge to close any gaps between people and police.

It seems “the people” aren’t the ones she feels need a bridge.

In the end, maybe Ayala needs to accept two things: that stopping vehicles for a variety of reasons and with a diversity of drivers and uncertainty is a hazard of their job; and that having a confidential registration might get her stopped–that’s a hazard of her job.

It would be better if Ayala used the influence of her position in the African-American community in addition to her hinting that the problem is all on law enforcement’s end.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

Published

on

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

In one of the most cringeworthy moments of Senator Kamala Harris’s new presidential campaign, the California Democrat found herself hesitant and uncertain about her feelings towards Jussie Smollett’s apparent hate-crime hoax. This is in stark contrast to her bold and racially charged accusations of a “modern day lynching” allegedly perpetrated by two Nigerian actors at the request of Smollett himself.

Above, you can see her attempt to calm the situation and state that facts are still emerging about the case. Of course, this is three weeks after the alleged incident, which is strange since her response the moment the news broke seemed to express zero interest in waiting for facts to emerge.

“. is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

This is the latest minefield Democrats find themselves traversing after quickly reacting to false claims. It happened with the Covington Catholic School boys. It’s happened far too many times since President Trump ran for President in 2016.

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

http://noqreport.com/2019/02/18/anti-maga-hoax-epidemic/There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

It doesn’t take a skilled orator or ethical paragon to say, “I reacted too quickly before. I should have waited for all of the facts to come out before reacting emotionally.” Of course, doing so requires humility, which Kamala Harris apparently does not have.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report