Ken Buck: Stop Protesting Police Brutality Because 9/11

TUESDAY UPDATE: Raw Story:

Buck did not mention that protests against the grand jury decisions in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases have remained largely peaceful. He also failed to mention data showing that African-American men constitute a higher percentage of victims in fatal shootings involving police.

Instead, he accused the media of giving “activists, athletes and members of Congress” a wide platform through which to question police officers’ motives…

Buck did not mention officers like Richmond, California Police Chief Chris Magnus or retired Philadelphia captain Ray Lewis, who have both joined in demonstrations in their respective cities.

—–

Rep.-elect Ken Buck.

Rep.-elect Ken Buck.

A fascinating guest opinion column published this weekend in the Colorado Springs Gazette by Rep.-elect Ken Buck, the outgoing arch-conservative Weld County district attorney now headed for Congress. The subject? All those big meanie protesters out there demonstrating against recent killings by police of unarmed African-American men and young boys. Are you aware that these protesters are totally hurting cops' feelings?

Have we forgotten 9/11? Do we remember the police officers, firefighters and EMS teams who died trying to save innocent victims of a terrorist attack? Alongside brave firefighters and selfless EMS teams, 23 courageous New York City police officers and 37 Port Authority officers gave their lives that day without hesitation. As district attorney, I see that courage every day from our law enforcement officers and know the price they pay…

It's easy for activists, athletes and members of Congress to question the motives of police officers. The media provides them with a broad platform to perpetuate their hateful tone, harsh criticisms, and mistruths. But when was the last time you heard someone call 911 to report an intruder in their home and ask for a congressman to come help them? Heck, Congress doesn't have the courage to tackle tough issues, much less a fleeing felon.

Got that, folks? Some cops died on 9/11. And none of these wussy members of Congress will save you from a burglar, with the obvious possible exception of Ken Buck. So stop complaining about cops blowing away unarmed brown people, will you? They all look alike to Buck anyway.

It gets better:

To foist generalizations and wild accusations of racial bias on them is hypocritical, disrespectful, and dangerous. Doing so won't make minority communities safer – it will simply harm the morale of our law enforcement officers and endanger them.

The United States is fortunate to have one of the most equitable justice systems in the world, even if it is not perfect. Those casting stones at police officers show an incredible lack of foresight about the problems they are causing by stoking racial divisions. We should appreciate the sacrifices police officers make to keep America safe and peaceful, not add fuel to the fire that is dividing our country.

You see, America, the problem is not that unarmed minority males get shot, chokeholded, beaten, and otherwise abused by police at vastly higher rates than whites in America–including here in Colorado, where black and Hispanic men are much more likely to be shot by police than white men. The real problem is that by taking note of these brown people getting killed by police, protesters are "harming the morale" of…the police. In Buck's world, it's not the shooting of black and Hispanic men that stokes "racial divisions"–it's complaining about it!

And with that, our nation can finally begin to heal.

34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ElliotFladen says:

    Peter Principle at work!

  2. dustpuppy says:

    Go back to sleep, Buck. You aren't up yet.. 

    Better get back to the coffin so we can re-bury you.

     

     

  3. FrankUnderwood says:

    Pretzel logic from Ken Buck.  Some cops did heroic thing on 9/11/01.  Others do shitty stuff more recently.  Therefore, all cops should get a pass for all of eternity.

  4. Republican 36 says:

    Mr. Buck's op/ed piece is his opening shot in his bid for higher office, which probably means another try for the U.S. Senate, sooner rather than later. Two circumstances are at work here.

    First, after the 2016 cycle, the next election for U.S. senator won't be until 2020 and undoubtedly, Sen.-elect Gardner will be running again which eliminates Mr. Buck. If, by chance, Senator Bennet lost in 2015 to some one other than Buck, then a Republican would be running for reelection in 2022. There wouldn't be any possibility for Buck to move to the upper chamber until 2026 or 2028 at which time he will be either 67 or 69 years old. HIs best chance is in 2016 and that brings into play the other factor.

    Mr. Buck's ambition always outruns his judgment. We have seen numerous examples of that in his 2010 senate campaign and recently in is juvenile response to running into President Obama at a pizzeria in Washington, DC. Make no mistake about it, he will run in 2016 against Senator Bennet but Buck's problem is his lack of judgment. He revealed it again in his op/ed piece in the Gazett. He was throwing red meat to the Republican base in El Paso County but his mind always works in a compartmentalized mode. He always believes he can say what he said in the op/ed piece and then say something else to other groups but it didn't work in 2010 and I don't think it will work in 2016.

     

    • dustpuppy says:

      Gardner's a one termer – the entire state of Colorado will be ready to fire him after disastrous years of Republican Senate does absolutely nothing to benefit the citizens of Colorado that Gardner's supposed to represent.

       

  5. Diogenesdemar says:

    ". . . activists, athletes and members of Congress . . ."

    . . . WTF???  Buckles the Clown can't imagine anyone else having a few questions or any concerns about police murders??

    Here's a craaaazy thought — if the police would stop murdering civilians, then they wouldn't have to feel so bad about that that their morale suffers?!?  Like I said, crazy . . .

  6. Zappatero says:

    Obviously the paper's new owner wanted him to say this. And when that owner owns the "new and improved" Rocky opinions like this will be published there, too.

  7. BlueCat says:

    Most people don't murder anyone and many do very nice, even heroic self sacrificing things for others so complaining about murder is so unfair to humans. Just gives humans a bad name.  For shame. And, BTW, 9/11.

  8. ajb says:

    Ken Buck just demonstrated why minorities don't trust the criminal justice system. Here's a former DA telling us that cops who commit crimes should not be punished. You can bet that, were he the prosecutor, no charges would have been filed in Ferguson or NYC. So much for blind justice.

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      AJB:

      "Cops who commit crimes should not be punished"?

      I didn't read that and I read the entire op-ed.

      The way it works under our system is a jury gets to decide if a crime was committed, not some left wing hacks on MSLSD or Pols.  In each case the prosecutor presented a case to a grand jury and it declined to find that a crime was committed.  If charged and subsequently if another jury finds a crime was committed then a judge imposes a sentence or punishment.

      It is not about blind justice in your case and perhaps the case of many in the progressive protestor class, it is about ignorance.

       

       

       

      • Duke Cox says:

        Yes…it is about ignorance…the willful kind…yours. i

      • spaceman65 says:

        Wrong.  Most charges in state courts are brought by information, not grand jury indictment, meaning that the prosecutors decide themselves whether to bring charges or not.  The prosecutor in Ferguson could have brought charges without going through the grand jury.  He decided not to but instead to use a grand jury to make the decision for him.  So when you call out others for their perceived ignorance, you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about first.

         

        • ct says:

          It would need to leave the blog forever then.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          Wrong.  As to public officials and police officers the route usually taken in state court is indictment.  That is the route both prosecutors employed.  The prosecutor wants a third party to make the decision to insulate them from being accused of being partial.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          Spacey:

          ​Here are some basics that might help educate you.  This is from Nolo:

          Unlike a preliminary hearing, held in court with the defense side present, the grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence—evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty—though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)

          In part because there’s no one on the "other side" to contest the prosecutor’s evidence, grand juries almost always return an indictment as requested by the prosecutor. According to a U.S. Department of Justice study on plea bargaining, “Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubber­stamps’ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters.” (Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices, by William F. McDonald, (U.S. DOJ, National Institute of Justice, 1985).)

          Where they have a choice, prosecutors often prefer grand juries because grand jury proceedings are secret. When prose­cutors file an information, they are usually required to convince a judge in a public preliminary hearing that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. This high burden is not present at a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecutor has to prove that there's only "probable cause" to believe that a crime occurred and the target of the proceeding comitted it.  Also, during a preliminary hearing, the defendant can see and cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which gives them a good preview into the prosecution's case.

          This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

          http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html

          When you are dealing with a public employee, a police officer or politician accused of wrongdoing, indictment is the way to go.

          I have had a state judge dismiss the charges brought against a public employee at the preliminary hearing stage that were brought for political reasons.  I got to cross examine the state's witnesses and the judge concluded they did not meet their burden and he dismissed the case.  If the prosecutor had gone the grand jury route it would have gone to trial.

          The other practical reason to go the grand jury route for a prosecutor is the case is against a police officer is the environment in which the prosecutor works.  Most of the people he works with are police officers and he wants to be able to leave the decision to others.

          • ajb says:

            AC, here's what you're missing, and perhaps I was too brief to make it clear: The prosecutor presents the case to the Grand Jury. If they don't want an indictment, they present a lousy case and they don't get one. After what Ken Buck said, only an idiot would expect him to secure an indictment of a police officer in a fatal shooting (were he still DA). 

            According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

            • Andrew Carnegie says:

              AJB, You are wrong again.  I seem to recall a couple years back there were some issues with the Fort Collins PD.  Buck was brought in and charges were filed against the officers.  He got an indictment for 8 felony counts for a Fort Collins Police Officer for perjury. This is from Wiki:

              On June 30, 2010, a Larimer County Grand Jury under the direction of neighboring Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck's office indicted Lt. James Broderick on eight counts of felony first-degree perjury for materially false statements he made pursuant to the arrest and conviction of Masters.[33] Count 1, concerning an affidavit for Masters' arrest, was dismissed by Weld County District Judge James Hartmann in the January 26, 2011 ruling, "People v. Broderick," in a section entitled "Bronston Principles."[34]

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Hettrick_murder_case

              The facts do not jive with your left wing talking points about Buck and prosecuting police officers.

          • Republican 36 says:

            Yes, but even in preliminary hearings cases are rarely dismissed by the judge. All the judge is looking at is whether there is sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to trial and he/she is not looking at the presentation by the DA and the defense attorney from the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." You're right a PH gives the defense a crack at dismissal before the case reaches a jury but it rarely happens.

  9. Moderatus says:

    Cause and effect, criminals get punished. I don't care what color they are.

  10. DaninDen says:

    A simplistic observation is that of modern history being divided into pre camera & post camera.Protests are being made globally over the injustices incurred as a matter of race, and elevation of a warrior class deemed by reactionaries as more important than lives of ordinary citizens   
     

    • Duke Cox says:

      elevation of a warrior class

      Indeed, Dan. I saw an interview by Ari Melber on MSNBC tonight  of a cop who was complaining about the sports figures, particularly one in Cleveland, showing solidarity with the protestors by wearing a shirt during warm-ups at a game. His point, somehow, was that the football player shouldn't disrespect cops because the cops work at the stadium where his team plays.

      Melber, not buying that lame bullshit, continued to press the guy whose argument evaporated because he couldn't really say what he wanted to…which was that cops lives are…

      more important than lives of ordinary citizens

      This is scary shit….

       

        
       

  11. ct says:

    So brown kids (that sure look like them hispanics and, hey, it was an easy mistake, they didn't  look like him and Perry!) make him lose his appetite; and anyone questioning (i.e. 'second guessing') the questionable activity (like strangling a man who declares, repeatedly he cannot breathe or gunning down a 12yo boy in a park with a toy gun within 2 secs – one mississippi two missippi after arriving) of government agents with the power to deprive individuals of both life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is bad because 9 1 1 9 1 1 9 1 1 13 years ago … mmmkay

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Jeez, I would have missed this little gem of Buckian logic:

      “When was the last time you heard someone call 911 to report an intruder in their home and ask for a congressman to come help them?” Rep-elect Ken Buck (R-CO) wrote."

      I'm putting Buckles number up on my refrigerator — next time the neighbor's mutt is yapping at 5:00 in the morning, I'll know exactly who to call.  (Heck, with any luck he'll bring Brophy with him!)

       

  12. Miss Jane says:

    The racism in the letter below is astonishing. Too many in the GOP blame black behavior for consequent police behavior.  They believe it is the behavior of the "black people"  that is the real cause of all this protest going on. This all reminds me of the "Robocop" movies and promotes overturning the rule of law and civil rights. I think that is their point.  Black and brown people shouldn't protest, but white guys can carry around AK 47s.   The police for the most part don't want guns flaunted in public.  Crabby old white guys think only white people should do that because they need "protection" from government overreach and scary brown people.  What an interesting perspective that is.  

     

    This is just a small sample of what is being printed in the Colorado Springs Gazette these days.  And did you know there was no choke hold used on Eric Garner?  Just ask the crabby old racist white people whose letters get posted there. 

    .

    "It is unfortunate, but true, that blacks seldom take responsibility for their actions – it is invariably someone else's fault."
    Read more at http://gazette.com/letters-thank-the-police-revolution-needed/article/1543155#Aq3jaRbZhK6DAFUL.99

     

    We have social problems in this country, we don't need hate and misinformation making them worse.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.