I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
The federal government has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in a case challenging the ban on possessing and carrying firearms in U. S. Post Offices, making the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) win final.
In September, the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of SAF and declared the carry ban on post office property unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement against the plaintiffs, including SAF members. The District Court went on to clarify that the injunction had nationwide effect. With the voluntary dismissal of the appeal, SAF’s win in the case stands, meaning all current and future SAF members will remain covered by the injunction moving forward.
A ghost gun company has been ordered to pay more than $100 million in the death of a Kentucky teenager who had purchased the company’s pistol-building kit online.
The verdict — believed to be the largest-ever against a gun dealer — was awarded by a jury Wednesday following a trial focused on whether the vendor, Husky Armory LLC, skirted federal regulations barring the sale of the gun-assembly kits to those under 21.
…
A state court in Louisville had previously issued a default judgment against the vendor for failing to respond to the lawsuit. Following a two-day trial this week, a jury awarded $4.2 million in economic damages and $100 million in punitive damages to the family.
“This historic verdict sends a powerful message to ghost-gun sellers who set up businesses to profit by circumventing critical safeguards like background checks and age verification,” said Dana Mulhauser, an attorney for Everytown Law.
There are some odd things in this story:
Why didn’t the dealer show up in court? Where they just letting the LLC fold and avoiding the lawyer costs?
What does “skirting federal regulations” and “circumventing critical safeguards” mean? If regulations were violated, then shouldn’t there have been criminal charges?
The 18-year-old who committed suicide with the “ghost gun” was legally an adult. And some Federal courts (with more coming soon) have ruled that 18-year-olds can legally purchase guns. To my readers who are lawyers, would a court ruling that an 18-year-old can legally purchase handguns result in this verdict being thrown out in some future appeal?
Joe: Why don’t these legal criteria result in an “unconstitutionally vague” situation?
Grok:
For your blog post, here’s a clear, balanced explanation of why courts have generally not struck down the “readily convertible” / ATF frame-and-receiver criteria as unconstitutionally vague.
The Legal Standard for “Void for Vagueness”
Under the Due Process Clause (5th and 14th Amendments), a law is unconstitutionally vague if it:
Fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited (or regulated), or
Encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.
However, the Supreme Court applies this doctrine with some flexibility, especially for economic/regulatory statutes (as opposed to pure criminal bans). Laws don’t need to be perfectly clear in every hypothetical; they must provide a “reasonable degree of clarity” for the average person. Courts also consider context, administrative guidance, and whether the law has a core set of applications that are understandable.
Why Courts Have Upheld ATF’s Approach
Multi-factor tests are common in federal law: The “readily convertible” standard draws from longstanding language in the National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act (1968), which use terms like “may readily be converted” for things like short-barreled shotguns or machine gun parts. Courts have upheld similar flexible standards for decades in firearms and other regulatory contexts (e.g., “sporting purposes” tests, “assault weapon” definitions in some states, or environmental regs).
Supreme Court precedent in ghost gun cases: In the 2025 Bondi v. VanderStok decision (and related rulings), the Court addressed the rule and did not invalidate it on vagueness grounds. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion focused on statutory interpretation and found that the Gun Control Act “plainly” covers certain kits and unfinished frames. The Court viewed the ATF’s factors as providing workable guidance tied to objective elements like design, marketing, and practical completability (e.g., referencing specific kits assemblable quickly with common tools).
Fair notice in practice: Proponents argue that commercial sellers and serious builders have access to ATF guidance, FAQs, industry examples, and legal counsel. The regulation targets clear cases (e.g., “Buy Build Shoot” kits marketed as easy home assembly) rather than raw scrap metal. Enforcement focuses on sellers, not random personal projects.
Judicial deference to agencies on technical matters: Courts often give agencies like the ATF latitude to interpret technical terms in their statutes, especially where Congress used broad language.
Counterarguments and Ongoing Debate
Critics (including some lower court opinions before Supreme Court review, and Second Amendment advocates) contend:
The factors (time, tools, skill, intent) are too subjective, creating a chilling effect on lawful conduct and risking selective enforcement.
The old informal “80%” line was clearer; the new rule blurs it in ways that make compliance unpredictable for manufacturers.
In some challenges, defendants have argued it violates fair notice, especially for edge cases.
These arguments have succeeded in narrow ways in lower courts or specific applications, but broad facial vagueness challenges to the core rule have not prevailed at the Supreme Court level so far. Vagueness claims in gun cases often intersect with Second Amendment scrutiny (Bruen framework), where regulations must be consistent with historical tradition—adding another layer.
Bottom Line for Context
The criteria survive (for now) because courts treat them as a workable regulatory standard with roots in older statutes, sufficient guidance for core applications, and legitimate government interests in tracing crime guns. That said, the area is litigious and somewhat uncertain—exactly why you’ve seen so many lawsuits, state variations, and industry shifts. Legal experts on both sides continue to debate it.
For your post, you could note that “vagueness” is a high bar to meet constitutionally, and regulators prefer flexible standards for evolving technology (like 3D printing or modular designs). Always attribute sources (ATF docs, court opinions) and consider including perspectives from groups like the NRA/GOA on one side and Everytown/Giffords on the other for balance.
This is a neutral summary based on public legal developments as of 2026—not legal advice. Court rulings can shift, so check the latest opinions if you’re publishing. Let me know if you need quotes, citations, or help structuring a section.
Joe: A short-barreled shotgun or rifle is readily created from a normal length shotgun or rifle with a hacksaw within a few minutes. Why doesn’t the sale of common shotguns and rifle result in a legal violation?
Grok:This is a common and reasonable question about the difference between “readily convertible” in practice versus how the law actually draws the line.
The Legal Distinction
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act, a short-barreled rifle (SBR) or short-barreled shotgun (SBS) is a regulated item (Title II firearm) requiring registration, tax stamp, and ATF approval. However, selling a standard, legal-length rifle or shotgun does not violate the law, even though a person could illegally shorten it with a hacksaw in minutes. Here’s why:
“Readily convertible” is not purely about physical ease or time alone. ATF and courts look at the overall design, configuration, and intent of the item as sold. A factory rifle or shotgun is manufactured and sold in a configuration that is not an NFA firearm. The law regulates the finished product’s characteristics (barrel length + overall length) at the time of transfer, not hypothetical future modifications by the buyer.
Precedent and statutory language: The NFA defines SBRs/SBSs based on their dimensions when possessed or transferred. Simple possession of a hacksaw or the knowledge that someone could cut it down does not turn a legal firearm into a regulated one. If it did, virtually every rifle and shotgun would be presumptively illegal, which Congress never intended.
Contrast with ghost gun kits: ATF’s frame/receiver rule (and “readily convertible” for kits) targets items specifically designed, marketed, or sold with the purpose and features that make them function as (or quickly become) the core regulated component of a firearm. Examples include unfinished frames bundled with jigs, matching slides, and instructions for rapid completion. A standard rifle is not sold that way—its design is for lawful use at full length.
Key Practical and Legal Reasons
Intent and marketing matter: Selling a hacksaw alongside a shotgun marketed as “easily convertible to SBS” could trigger scrutiny. Selling a normal shotgun does not.
Historical and policy line: Congress chose specific dimensional thresholds for NFA items rather than banning everything modifiable. Making an SBR without approval is illegal (possession of the modified gun), but the unmodified host gun remains legal.
Enforcement reality: ATF prosecutes illegal shortening after the fact. They do not treat every long gun sale as constructive manufacture of an NFA item.
In short, the law focuses on the characteristics and commercial presentation of the item at the point of sale/transfer, not every possible illegal downstream modification. This is why standard rifles and shotguns are freely sold, while certain unfinished frames/kits designed to become functional firearms quickly face different rules.
This distinction helps explain why the “readily convertible” standard is applied more narrowly in some contexts than a pure “can it be done fast with basic tools?” test. For your blog, it’s a useful illustration of how technical feasibility alone doesn’t dictate legality—statutory definitions, intent, and regulatory purpose do.
As always, this is a high-level overview of federal rules; specific cases can turn on facts, and state laws add layers.
This is too nebulous and creates a chilling effect upon a specific enumerated right. “Shall not be infringed” is the proper resolution.
Honorable Roger T. Benitez (Ret.) served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of California from 2004 until his… pic.twitter.com/m1hJsiGh0U
Nothing much has changed with the New York Times over the years. In the 1930s, thanks to Walter Duranty, the so-called “newspaper of record” was effectively cheerleading for Joseph Stalin’s communism. Today, in Jia Lynn Yang’s “How American Socialism Changed, and Stormed the Democratic Party,” it displays a similar sympathy for a modernized version of that same evil system, now advanced by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies.
Yang’s article is filled with admiration for socialism’s supposed adaptability and moral force. She notes that Mamdani’s New York protégés “won by harnessing a wide sense of grievance.” In other words, they are skilled politicians, identifying discontent and converting it into electoral success. But Stalin, too, harnessed grievance, appealing to resentment against the czarist regime. That did not make him a champion of liberty.
What do you expect? If they were capable of learning from history and the world around them, they could see the difference between East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Hati and the Dominican Republic (opposite sides of the same island), and Venezuela before and after the socialists took power.
Even when lined up at the edge of the ditch like millions of others before them, they will still insist, “This is a mistake! I’m a good communist! This isn’t real communism!”*
Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.
But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voters, illegal mixed-race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.
A culture shift with support from the courts allowed homosexuals out of the closet and the right to marry.
It is now our turn to change the culture in a dramatic and nearly irreversible way.
With a specific constitutionally protected right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to back us up, why can’t we achieve our goals as well? I think we can and will. I think we are on the edge of a widespread collapse of the resistance to our destiny. I think wins in the “assault weapon” cases will break their will to continue.
The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.
Today, Barb and I went on a somewhat impromptu hike to the First Burroughs Mountain adjacent to Mount Rainier. We had been in this area before (see Barb and Joe’s unexpected adventure and The mountain has a hat). I think it was my current manager at work who recommended today’s trail. I had been somewhat intrigued by the trail when we took the branch to the Mount Fremont lookout. Even more so the second time when I went with a co-worker from the east coast. Then, when my manager strongly recommended it, I decided it was definitely on my to-do list. When on Saturday Barb said she would like to go to Rainier and asked where I would like to go. I told her of the recommendation and we made it happen.
We left home at 5:30 AM and arrive at the Sunrise Parking lot about 7:45 AM. The lot was nearly full. We felt really good about getting a decent parking spot. It was foggy and even misty on the drive, and we were a little concerned about the weather blocking good views. The forecast was for a sunny afternoon and by 8:45 it was rapidly clearing.
7:59 AM leaving the Sunrise parking lot:
There are steep cliffs and from the trees you know it the winters are long and harsh. The fog was started to clear by 8:11:
Below is a picture of Barb on the trail ahead of me and was taken a few seconds after the picture above. The trail on this section is really nice. Other areas were narrower and potentially hazardous.
This picture was from 8:45 and is the trail I had only seen from a distance on the way to and from the Fremont Lookout. You can see the trail below going across the hillside from this picture from the Fremont Lookout post.
At 8:58 you can see the trail to the lookout and the lookout itself (on top of the first peak from the left) across the valley:
More pictures from the same location at the picture above:
25 mm lens.
50 mm lens.
18 mm lens at 9:07. This was our first good view of Mount Rainer itself:
55 mm lens at 9:07:
From the top of First Burroughs, we could see about 10 goats who seem to have no concern there were 20 or more people 100 or so feet away giving them lots of attention.
9:46 with a 55 mm lens:
9:47 with a 300 mm lens:
Same picture as above with the image cropped:
Still more cropping:
9:48 Barb:
9:58 I’m not sure what this is supposed to be. But it is on the top of the First Burroughs:
10:10 We took a new to us trail back to Sunrise:
10:40 The trail is a little more “interesting” here. Barb became far more cautious. She once fell on a trail while on Mount Rainier and it took her a year to fully recover:
We were really glad we took the new trail. Not only because it was new to us but because we had a spectacular view when we stopped for lunch at 10:45. Just left of center is a gravel covered glacier. You can see the glacier wall and the multiple streams of glacier melt leaving the face of the glacier. On the right is Mount Rainier:
11:03 The glacier face with a 300 mm lens:
11:03 120 mm lens. A lake fed in part from the glacier:
11:05 Mount Rainier with a 129 mm lens:
11:10 Another interesting point on the trail:
We got back to our car about 1:30. We walked a total of 6.9 miles. We drove home and took naps. It was a bit tiring but very well worth it.
This analysis draws on two major U.S. military sources: the 1962 U.S. Army Medical Department report Wound Ballistics, which compiled data from multiple surveys covering thousands of casualties from World War II and Korea, and the 2012 technical report by two U.S. Air Force Academy researchers that provides a detailed study of the ballistics of the 30-06 cartridge.
Analysis
A deformed, wobbling (yawing), non-bonded bullet, traveling at an estimated 2,507 feet per second, that is designed to mushroom and deform upon contact, likely began to tumble by over 90 degrees within 3″ of tissue, separate and fragment, dumping all of it’s 2018 ft-lbs of energy within just 6 inches.
I am skeptical this can be used as a definitive answer to the questions raised because it seems unlikely the U.S. Army had access to statistically significant human wound ballistic data with 30.06 cartridges using soft-point bullets. Military ammo is full metal jacket with more recent allowance of the use of match grade hollow points where the hollow point is an artifact of the construction rather than a deliberate design to increase the ability of the bullet to wound.
That said, through and through shots for elk with this bullet type and weight (the claims I have seen are 150 grain Remington Core Lok), are far from certain. With deer they are mostly certain. But these shots are mostly through the lungs which are much easier to penetrate than muscle. So, with a young, large man like Kirk, a bullet losing its jacket and fragmenting in a neck shot, as the autopsy claims, then the main bullet fragment hitting the spine (I don’t know about this part) it seems plausible that it might not have exited.
Let’s be precise about causes. For example, the housing crisis isn’t a progressive policy failure — it’s rooted in decades of restrictive zoning, corporate real estate speculation. Homelessness requires federal funding for mental health services and addiction treatment. Blue cities can’t solve (problems like these) alone.
Not in the theatrical sense the conspiracy industrial complex thrives on…no dramatic last-minute twist, no shadowy cabal revealed, no grand redemption arc for the woman who built a brand on “I alone see the pattern.”
Just the cold, high-resolution truth of a man on a roof, in position, taking the shot that killed Charlie Kirk.
The footage doesn’t speculate. It doesn’t theorize. It simply records the moment Tyler Robinson did exactly what the evidence has always said he did.
And in doing so, it performs a public autopsy on Candace Owens’ entire post-Kirk ecosystem of insinuation, deflection, and narrative preservation at the expense of reality.
This is not opinion. This is what happens when the lens gets close enough to kill the story.
…
Tyler Robinson’s remaining legal options have been narrowed to whatever procedural arguments his defense can still raise against an evidence package that now includes the visual capture of the act itself.
That is a matter for the court.
Candace Owens’ narrative has been reduced to whatever residual audience can still be sustained by increasingly implausible pivots.
That is a matter for the market and for whatever remains of her credibility.
Both collapses were inevitable the moment the footage existed. The only variable was how long the denial could be maintained before the lens got close enough.
It got close enough.
The roof does not lie.
The timeline does not lie.
The DNA does not lie.
The family’s recognition does not lie.
The taped statement does not lie.
And now the zoomed-in record of the shot itself does not lie.
It is over for the shooter’s attempt to remain a question mark.
It is over for the grifter’s attempt to keep the question mark alive as content.
What remains is the cold, precise work of justice and the quieter work of those who choose reality over the narcotic of perpetual suspicion.
I asked Grok, “Please give me a concise list of references and a summary of the recent hearing about the Charlie Kirk murder.“, then “Please tell me about the conspiracy theories to the effect Robinson was a patsy or pawn for Israel/CIA/Deep-State/etc. and how the evidence affects those beliefs.“
The response to the last question was the more interesting to me:
Main conspiracy theories portraying Tyler Robinson (the 23-year-old charged with aggravated murder) as a “patsy” or pawn in a larger plot include claims of involvement by Israel/Mossad, the CIA/Deep State, or other entities (e.g., Turning Point USA insiders, Kirk’s widow Erika, or foreign actors). These surged immediately after the September 10, 2025, shooting at Utah Valley University and persist among some online commentators (e.g., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and far-right/anti-Israel voices).
Key Theories
Israel/Mossad False Flag: Kirk was allegedly killed because he was shifting away from strong pro-Israel support (e.g., losing Jewish donors, considering inviting Candace Owens, or questioning Epstein-Mossad links). Claims suggest a professional hit disguised with Robinson as a fall guy to silence him or manipulate U.S. policy. Netanyahu publicly denied this as a “monstrous big lie.”
CIA/Deep State or Broader Conspiracy: Robinson was manipulated/framed by intelligence agencies, leftist networks, or security lapses at the event (e.g., no rooftop coverage despite promises). Some allege a “false flag” to inflame divisions, with Robinson as a radicalized but controlled asset. Variants include staged elements, multiple shooters, or insiders (e.g., TPUSA or Erika Kirk).
Other Variants: Robinson didn’t act alone or fire the shot (e.g., decoys in similar shirts, manipulated video, or a different shooter from a water tower); the event was a hoax/staged; or bullet forensics prove a setup.
These often blend antisemitic tropes, “noticing” narratives, or distrust of official accounts, amplified on X and by influencers.
How Evidence from Investigations and the July 2026 Preliminary Hearing Affects These Claims
The hearing (July 6–10, 2026) and prior disclosures strongly support a lone-actor case with ideological motives (Robinson’s leftist shift, criticism of Kirk’s views on gender/trans issues, anti-fascist/engraved cartridges). Prosecutors describe “overwhelming” evidence; no credible links to foreign governments, intelligence agencies, or insiders have emerged. Robinson’s defense has challenged specifics (e.g., DNA reliability) but not alleged a broader conspiracy.
Surveillance Video: Multiple clips show a figure matching Robinson scouting the campus hours earlier (e.g., in shorts/T-shirt, buying food, contacting TPUSA people), changing clothes, accessing the rooftop, and fleeing afterward. This undercuts “not on campus” or “decoy” claims. Emotional moments included Kirk’s family viewing footage.
DNA and Physical Evidence: Links Robinson to the suspected rifle (DNA on trigger/casings), a tool for etching cartridges, and the scene. A “sniper pad” was found on the roof. Bullet fragment matching was “inconclusive” (common in fragmented cases and not disproving the rifle), but this is outweighed by other forensics.
Confessions and Motive: Texts/notes to his roommate/romantic partner (Lance Twiggs) expressed intent (“had enough of his hatred,” opportunity to “take out” Kirk) and remorse. Twiggs testified about this; Robinson turned himself in the next day via family. No evidence of coercion or staging.
No Patsy Indicators: Robinson remains alive, in custody, and has not implicated handlers (despite opportunities). Defense hasn’t pursued conspiracy angles. No leaks or evidence from investigations point to Mossad/CIA involvement.
Overall Impact: The evidence presented makes patsy theories highly implausible for most observers, as it depicts a premeditated but amateurish solo act by a ideologically motivated individual (consistent with his background and communications). Conspiracies rely on speculation, selective focus (e.g., the bullet report), or unproven claims about Kirk’s donor tensions, which lack forensic or testimonial support in court.
The judge will rule on probable cause for trial on September 1, 2026. Official sources (prosecutors, FBI, local law enforcement) treat it as a straightforward case; theories persist in fringe circles but have been widely criticized as distractions or grifting. Always cross-reference primary court updates over social media narratives.
It’s sad, but I know that this evidence will convince almost none of the conspiracy theorist types. If this goes to trial, the evidence becomes public, the testimony is cross-examined, and still there will be believers that Robinson did not do it and/or some shadowy organization had a part in it.
I know it is irrational to expect people to rational. I know that reality is really, really, tough. But at some point, I just get really sad at the realization that rationality is just an extremely thin veneer over some humans and for many it doesn’t even exist. It is getting close to the point I just need to give up on changing the world and just go do my own thing in my underground bunker in Idaho.
Standing up to the manufacturers of these weapons of war isn’t enough. They are shielded by lobbyists and legal protections, making them hard to stop in traditional ways.
That’s why we’re taking action—not by going after the gun makers directly, but by targeting the companies that do business with them… those one step away. Retailers. Lawyers. Brands that power their supply chains.
By taking action against businesses that support gun makers, we can disrupt the systems that allow mass shootings to continue.
We are one step away from saving lives.
…
Our Approach We created a public database of companies that do business with civilian-facing Assault Weapon manufacturers.
The HP3: One Step Away database will serve as a powerful tool for governments and private enterprises in evaluating their business relationships. And daily consumers can make a difference with each of their purchases.
We can make good use of their database. We look there for companies we want to do business with (those labeled enablers) and who we wish to avoid doing businesses with (those labeled heroes).
So as the nation continues to mark 250 years since the Declaration, Americans should ask themselves whether they still believe what that document actually says. If rights are unalienable, they do not vanish when they become politically inconvenient. If government exists by consent, then public officials are bound by limits they did not create and may not erase. And if one generation owes the next the full inheritance of freedom, then this generation has no right to reduce the Second Amendment to a loophole, a relic, or a slogan.
It is part of the American formula. It helped secure the first 250 years of American liberty. It will be just as necessary for the next 250.
While I generally agree with what is said here and think people should reflect on the document which conceived our nation and lead to its birth a few years later. There are two points I would like to make about this.
First, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing our nation. It is historical background which can be used to determine the proper interpretation of other documents of actual legal documents of that era.
Second, there are far too many people in this country who think the rights are something completely different than what our constitution provides for and the Declaration of Independence asserts are true. For example, a scary high percentage of people believe there should be a right to health care, food, and shelter. They cannot seem to understand that if things like that are considered rights, then others must provide those things without compensation. No matter how you twist the words or hide the details in layers of legalize and bureaucracy, if someone gets goods and services without paying for them then someone else was, in essence, robbed in the process of providing them.
Don’t ever let conversations about rights get sidetracked into such distractions. Just tell them, “It is not a right if someone else has to provide it.”
In June 2026, Russia experienced around 40,000 casualties in just one month of combat, significantly surpassing its monthly recruitment capability of 24,000 to 30,000, indicating that the nation is losing personnel more rapidly than it can replenish them. The Center for Strategic International Studies reports that total Russian casualties have escalated to 1.4 million. Currently, Russia is incurring losses of 1,298 troops for every square kilometer of Ukrainian territory seized, a stark contrast to the 68 casualties per square kilometer recorded in June 2025, marking a drastic decline in military effectiveness by a factor of 19. Analysts from the US Department of Defense caution that this rate of loss is not sustainable and may lead Moscow to consider escalatory measures targeting NATO supply chains or American resources.
Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
This is not the first time this has been demonstrated. It happens again and again. Here is another example: The world’s best gun salesman. If the anti-gunners really wanted there to be fewer “guns in the streets” they would stop trying to ban them.
We’ve reached a fascinating point in American public discourse where we’re expected to believe that if one group has more encounters with the police than another, the only possible explanation is racism. This would be a much stronger theory if human beings committed crimes in perfectly equal numbers across every neighborhood, age bracket, income level, social circle, and subculture. In case you have not noticed: They don’t.
Police respond to crime.
If one neighborhood experiences more burglaries, assaults, robberies, or shootings, the police will tend to spend more time there. This is not an especially controversial observation. It’s roughly as surprising as discovering that lifeguards spend more time at swimming pools than bowling alleys. Yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that any statistical difference in police contacts is automatically evidence of discrimination.
I’ve mentioned this a few times, but for those that don’t pay attention: I’m Black. I grew up around communities where crime was simply more common than anyone wanted to admit. That doesn’t mean everyone there was a criminal. (Far from it.) Most people were decent folks trying to live their lives. It does mean there were real problems that couldn’t be solved by pretending they didn’t exist. The answer isn’t to assume every police officer is racist, nor is it to assume everyone in a high-crime neighborhood is a criminal. Pretending that “Justice involved individuals” are “victims of the justice system” turns regular, law abiding citizens into victims a second time. In case I have to spell it out for you, this is bad. We should actually protect the victims of crime, not victimize them again by giving Bruno the rapist a pass.
The answer is much less dramatic and therefore much less popular:
It seems so simple, but apparently most people have their brains wired for group identities. Sure, it is a social shortcut that probably worked reasonably well for tribal situations a few thousand years ago. But with societies of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions that shortcut becomes unworkable. You end up with terrible injustices.
