Black Privilege Now Grants The Power To Assault Cops

A California case sets a disturbing precedent

A black man viciously attacked a white female cop in 2019. During the assault, he stole her gun and allegedly fired at her. The whole attack, which occurred in San Bernardino, California, was caught on video.

This would seem to be an easy conviction, but you would be mistaken. The assailant, Ari Young, was found not guilty of the most serious charges. Young’s attorney claimed he acted in self-defense when he attacked the sheriff’s deputy, Meagan McCarthy. McCarthy tried to detain Young after receiving a domestic disturbance call from his mother. The man was acting violently and even threatened to headbut McCarthy when she approached him. But Young’s defense attorney, Raj Maline, argued that the officer unlawfully detained the assailant, which justified the assault.  Maline claimed that his client didn’t shoot in McCarthy’s direction, which would negate an attempted murder charge (McCarthy insisted the gun was fired in her general direction). The lawyer also pointed to Young’s schizophrenia to excuse his behavior.

The argument persuaded the jury. Young was found not guilty of attempted murder and assault with a firearm on a peace officer. The jury deadlocked over charges of battery against a peace officer, removal of an officer's sidearm and resisting arrest. They did find Young guilty of negligent discharge of a firearm, but he had already served enough time in jail to satisfy that sentence. He was immediately released after the trial and won’t face any additional jail time for the assault.

In summary, the trial found that a black man who was acting violently towards his mother and a cop should’ve not been detained and he had a right to beat, disarm and allegedly shoot at a cop. Even if Young didn’t directly shoot at McCarthy, he obviously did assault a police officer, removed an officer’s sidearm, and resist arrest. It was all on video. Yet, a jury still couldn’t convict him, despite having the clearest evidence in the world. 

Officials implied the jury may have had an anti-cop bias. That’s probably true, but it may not be the only bias the jury exhibited. It’s unlikely the jury would have reached the same conclusion if the assailant was a white male and the cop was a black female. It’s reasonable to conclude that the jury may have also been biased in favor of blacks against whites. 

The case sets a precedent that blacks have the right to resist arrest and can use as much violence as they want to accomplish that goal.

This standard has been built up over time. An underlying part of the Breonna Taylor case is that her boyfriend had the right to shoot at cops coming into his apartment. Her boyfriend was eventually cleared of charges related to the gun battle. 

Jaleel Stallings shot at a police van during the George Floyd riots in Minnesota back in 2020. He claimed he didn’t realize it was a police van and thought the officers were random hoodlums (The police were firing rubber bullets at rioters to disperse the mob). Stallings claimed self-defense. A jury agreed with him and found him not guilty. He later received a $1.5 million dollar settlement from the police roughing him up during his arrest.

Andrew Coffee IV shot at police during a drug raid of his Florida home in 2017. His girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. He was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder in his trial in 2021. He claimed he acted in self-defense and that the police didn’t properly identify themselves. 

The Ari Young case is obviously more outrageous than these prior incidents. Young simply claimed he was in the right to beat a cop up and steal her gun. Only in a country where black privilege reigned supreme could that work. Sadly, that country is our own.

I’ve written a lot lately about how system racism actually benefits blacks in our courts. The Ari Young case is just another example to add to the list. Here are some other examples: 

• A jury deadlocked over convicting two black thieves of the 2017 murder of an elderly white photographer in San Francisco. The murder was caught on film and the defendants admitted to committing the heinous act. But defense attorneys claimed that one perp could not be found responsible due to her suffering from a “sickle cell crisis,” drug withdrawals, and a low IQ. This argument apparently persuaded some of the jurors.

• The three black men involved in Ethan Liming’s 2022 beating death saw their murder charges reduced to lesser offenses. One of the participants was only sentenced to 180 days in jail.

• A black man in Iowa was found not guilty of murder last year for his role in the death of his white girlfriend. He severely beat the victim and the woman fell from her apartment balcony during the assault. She died from the fall. The jury found the black man not responsible for the death–only for the assault.

• Kansas City officials refused to press murder charges against a black woman who shot and killed an off-duty white firefighter. The firefighter had confronted the woman’s boyfriend after he threatened a gas station clerk. The boyfriend fought the white man, but the fight was not going well for him. The girlfriend shot the firefighter, which authorities determined was in self-defense. 

• A black man in South Carolina was found not guilty in 2021 after shooting and killing a white retired volunteer fire chief as the victim sat in his car. The shooter claimed the victim startled him and that was a sufficient explanation to find him innocent of murder.

• A black man in Florida was sentenced to house arrest in 2022 over the fatal beating of a white man who called him a slur. Prosecutors felt the punch that killed the 77-year-old victim merited a lenient sentence because “the victim repeatedly used possibly the most aggressive and offensive term in the English language.”

• Prosecutors in Florida dropped charges in 2017 against a black man who beat his white math tutor to death after the victim allegedly used a racial slur. The prosecutor’s office felt it had no “competent evidence” to rebut the defendant’s claim he was provoked into violence and said the slaying was not done in a “cruel and unusual manner.”

This list will only grow longer as the years go by. Too many Americans genuinely believe the systemic racism myth. They feel that the justice system sends too many innocent blacks to jail. When these people are put on juries, they feel it’s their duty to correct this injustice by favoring black defendants. This was the argument used by jurors in a 2021 trial of Dayonte Resiles, a black man accused of a brutal home invasion murder in Florida. Nobody in the jury doubted that the accused had done the crime, but three jurors said he should only be found guilty of a lesser manslaughter charge because they didn’t want to send another black man to jail for life. This argument swayed everyone on the jury except for the forewoman.

It’s very likely this argument has been in many of the cases listed above. No matter how senseless the crime, some believe the real travesty would be to send a black man to jail. 

This sentiment is propelled by America’s state religion of Afrolatry. Republicans aren’t immune to it. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott just signed a bill to protect black hair from “discrimination.” Only a few years ago conservatives mocked “CROWN” Acts as the nadir of wokeness. Now one of the most conservative governors proudly signs it into law. It’s easy to critique Target for selling Satanic trans merch, but it’s hard to resist the call of Afrolatry.

This mentality will further cement anarcho-tyranny in our justice system. It will be hard to convict any black person of a serious crime if they can just say they were acting in self-defense. If a jury can’t convict a black man of viciously beating a cop, what chance does the ordinary white person have of seeing their assailant sent to jail? 

It cannot be said enough: black privilege is real and it hurts our country.