Should Baltimore be a ‘No White Cop’ Zone?

protest

The breaking, entering and looting of a CVS drugstore, the Mondawmin Mall, a Save-A-Lot, a Rite-Aid and other smaller businesses – including a deli, a check-cashing storefront, a liquor store and a partially completed $16 million senior citizen center – by “mourners” was no doubt owing to the fact that these businesses had somehow offended the community home to Freddie Gray.

These “civil rights demonstrators,” after their looting sprees, then loaded up their cars with stolen goods and fled, after setting more than 150 fires, as of this writing. Others burned and trashed police cars and other vehicles in Baltimore, no doubt expressing “mutual sympathy” with the Gray family. You know, kinda like those “mourners” who rioted, looted and burned in sympathy with the family of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Apparently the folks operating these businesses should have received sensitivity training or been banned from establishing stores in black neighborhoods in the first place. They demonstrated this lack of sensitivity by opening white and black-owned stores (one or two) in “predominately African-American neighborhoods.” Perhaps the phrase “predominately African-American neighborhood” holds the key to a solution to our present problem of “white cop violence” in black neighborhoods.

A year ago, I wrote a column with a prescription that “would prevent police having rocks and Molotov cocktails hurled at them, eliminate all marches and protests against ‘racist’ white officers and police departments, potentially save thousands (if not millions) of tax dollars and could, possibly, result in lower state and federal tax rates.”

In that column, I made reference to a practice that apparently is gaining some, albeit unwilling, momentum in certain areas of several countries. You have doubtless heard of the practice being implemented in such countries as England, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, as well as in one of Europe’s most immigration-friendly countries, Sweden. This concept, over the past few years, has gained momentum and has in some cases been implemented officially.

It is the establishment of a practice known as “no-go zones.”

Would this solution work to resolve the alleged police racial bias in American cities like Cleveland; Detroit; Chicago; Philadelphia; Washington, D.C.; Baltimore etc., with predominately black neighborhoods? (Remember, statistical evidence in America overwhelmingly substantiates black-on-black crime, so the odds are the criminal will also be black.) However, according to the national media, and contrary to statistical evidence, the reportage implies almost all the crimes against blacks are committed not by other blacks, but by white police in these neighborhoods.

As I pointed out last year, a modified form of this new solution would be these no-go zones with “no white cops allowed in ‘da hood.’” If a black cop were not immediately available, the residents would handle the situation until a black cop was located and dispatched. If the city had no black cops, they would be imported from the nearest city having African-American police officers on the payroll.

However, in the aforementioned countries, there is a new method being proposed and, in some cases, officially accepted. Perhaps a modified form of this concept would resolve many of the grievances presently being highlighted by the press in American cities. In some cities and neighborhood in the previously named countries, this concept is being implemented by the predominately Muslim residents of certain communities.

Here is how it works: Certain areas that have predominately Muslim populations and are under the dominion of the Muslim doctrine establish these “no-go zones.” Anyone unwilling to abide by the rules of the strictly enforced Muslim religious code are advised via signage, “You only enter the area at your own risk.” This includes police, firemen, emergency workers, etc. In other words, “If you are not Muslim, stay out. You obey our rules and customs or suffer the consequences.” Muslims who have immigrated to European countries are now demanding the right to officially establish these no-go zones.

These no-go zones are spreading across Europe and now have migrated to the U.S. In Dearborn, Michigan (with more than 100,000Muslims), 45 percent of the city has settled into a no-go zone, referred to as Dearborn-Dar-al-Islam (a place governed by Islamic Shariah law). The Muslims provide weapons and guards and government officials in their own societies. Only Muslims can apprehend and arrest Muslims according to Muslim law and tradition.

Have we inadvertently stumbled upon a solution to rioting in places like Ferguson and Baltimore? Would it be that difficult to implement? Let’s look.

Blacks, predominantly, already live there! Just turn the hood into a “no-go zone.” Let blacks provide weapons and guards and government officials in their own societies. Only blacks could apprehend and arrest blacks. No white cops, only black cops, black firemen, mayors, city councils, city courts, preachers, teachers, restaurants, theaters, etc. This is our neighborhood: “Dis is da hood! Blacks only – Whitey stay out!” Problem solved.

But wait – didn’t we have that once?

And didn’t we march, sing, pray and, in some instances, die to get outta there?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. We did have that. It was called “segregation.”

Default Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Facebook Comments (0)

Disqus Comments (0)

http-freedomsjournalinstitute-org
%d bloggers like this: