Browse By

FBI Director James Comey Calls Racism Common Sense

A few days ago, FBI Director James Comey got some attention when he told an audience at the University of Chicago law school that protests against racist discrimination by police have led to a spike in crime in many cities. Anti-racism protesters with video cameras have “officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime,” Comey said, because they’re afraid that they’ll get in trouble for aggressively dealing with people engaged in criminal behavior.

jamescomeyThese statements confused many people, because they suggest that Comey believes that police can only control criminal behavior by breaking the law themselves. After all, police who follow the law in the way they deal with suspected criminals have nothing at all to fear from being filmed as they do their jobs. It’s only when police are caught on camera breaking the law by assaulting criminal suspects or otherwise breaking the law that they can get in trouble. Comey didn’t seem to think that it would be possible for police officers to do their jobs without having free rein to violate the law with impunity.

When he shared these ideas, James Comey wasn’t speaking as if he was just making a guess or offering his own opinion. He was speaking as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He spoke as if he was simply declaring the truth, after looking at statistical evidence that substantiated his claim.

Yesterday, Comey admitted that, in fact, he didn’t have any evidence that citizen filming of police officers had any causal relationship with increases in crime. Comey said that it was just “common sense” to think that when anti-racism protesters use cameras to record racist criminal abuses of citizens by the police, police officers will stop doing their jobs out of fear of getting in trouble.

“The honest answer is I don’t know for sure whether that’s the case,” Comey said, “but I do have a strong sense.”

A strong sense? Common sense?

What James Comey is saying is that he shouldn’t need to provide concrete evidence to support his claim that anti-racism protesters are causing a spike in crime across the country. Comey thinks we ought to just take his word for it.

Does Comey really not understand that this is the very attitude among law enforcement officials that anti-racism protesters are demonstrating against in the first place? Evidence proves that police in many regions of the United States regularly treat African-Americans as if they are criminals, even when there is no evidence of actual criminal activity taking place. Now, Comey is presuming that African-American protesters are encouraging criminal activity, even though he doesn’t have any actual evidence to support his case.

The FBI Director, of all people, ought to understand that it’s important to have evidence before making accusations against people. He ought to know that blaming citizen oversight for criminal activity is anything but common sense. If James Comey can’t come to grasp these basic ideas, it’s time for him to resign from his job.

17 thoughts on “FBI Director James Comey Calls Racism Common Sense”

  1. ella says:

    Peregrin, there is something I am beginning to notice, that is that the ‘law’ is being likened unto an ingrained social habit. That the ‘law’ is the only right, whether the ‘law’ fits all occasions or not. Inflexible in a social sense. That if a criminal attacks an officer and is considered of a ‘racial’ background that there is a ‘law’ against ‘hitting’, then the officer is to take being hit and not defend themselves. As in Ferguson, where officers had to stand and be injured, rather than defend themselves. Do you believe that is right? Could it have some effect on Comeys’ viewpoint? Camera’s catch some of what is happening, but it is my sense, that in some scenes I have seen, the ‘criminal’ is coming from behind the camera, into the field of view, which then shows the officer taking some violent action. Instant blame, like children who have learned how to use one parent against another by setting up a given scenario. It isn’t that way all of the time of course, but it still could have some merit.

  2. Charles Manning says:

    I’m with you on this, Peregrin Wood. When law officers are caught shooting unarmed civilians and killing or injuring them in other ways without justification, that has a bad effect on respect for law and order. The problem isn’t with those who photograph the misdeeds of law officers; it’s the misdeeds themselves. Now that there are more cell phone cameras everywhere, law officers need to put more emphasis on proper law enforcement instead of trying to justify their own misdeeds.

    1. ella says:

      On the flip side, you are pointing out what has so many of us incensed, that there is obviously a trend in officers (or people who are in the uniform) are being caught abusing their power. North Dakota is using drones to collect evidence. This article covers some of their activities developing in the use of drones.

      “Weapons considered less than lethal can still be deadly. So far in 2015, at least 39 people in the U.S. have been killed by police Tasers, according to The Guardian. Rubber bullets, beanbags and tear gas canisters have also caused extensive injuries and even death.”

      But this is from an article that is advocating the use of Drones without lethal weapons, for law enforcement. (Definitely no lethal weapons!)

      “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period,””Becker said at a hearing in March, according to The Daily Beast.”

    2. Jason H. says:

      Mr. Manning,

      Very true.

      I have an uncle in law enforcement and he agreed with Mr. Wood and also yourself 100%.

      He said something about today’s militarization of the police and that it has been going on since like the 1990s or so. He said that there’s a couple of good books out there that are specifically about that militarization. I will try to locate the titles from him.

      Anyway, he also said that today’s technology is now clashing with that attitude. Specifically in that there are all of those cameras out there and then more and more police units now having not just cameras in their police cars but also now more and more the body cameras.

      So instead of learning or being taught different approaches and attitudes, the police keep getting taught the same but that creates problems so they basically retreat into their shells.

      He mentioned some other things also but I have an appointment right now, so can’t continue.

      But I also agree with you guys.

  3. Dave says:

    Back in the 90’s I took the car keys away from a man who had sped through a gas station and nearly hit a woman and her small child, then coming to a stop. He was drunk to the point of stupefaction, and I considered him to be dangerous. After calling the police (from a pay phone – remember them?) and waiting about half an hour an officer showed up and put him in the back seat of the police car for a ride downtown.

    The drunk was not resisting arrest, nor was he cooperative — just drunk, and I was little surprised by the handling he got from the cop, lots of grunting and shoving and arm twisting and such, but it was really like watching someone trying to put a 250 pound sack of potatoes in the car, not an easy task.

    The officer thanked me for waiting for him and said something about how busy they were tonight and how few people would have done what I did, and off he went. There were no cell phones then, but anyone making a video of the simple act of taking a drunk off the street could put it on YouTube and make it look like a case of police brutality. I don’t particularly disagree with your point, Peregrin, and I like having lots of phones around when things get ugly, but a trip to YouTube and a good look at any number of videos labeled “police brutality” and one will simply see in many cases cops just trying to get some shitass off the street.

    The police need to get used to being on camera because it’s here to stay, but I understand their caution about being filmed, which indeed does impact their willingness to be involved with turbulent street life. How do I know this? I’m human just like they are, and am sure I would have my own limits to how far I would stick my neck out for an unappreciative public.

    1. ella says:

      This is a quote from an article discussing the ambushing of police officers between 2008 – 2013. It is a relevant read.

      “Factors that lowered the risk of police ambushes were higher education levels among police recruits and the use of cameras mounted on police cars, which provide a deterrent on both officer and citizen behavior, the report said.”

  4. Robert Milnes says:

    Dave, I tend to agree with you. And I am about as anti-fbi as you can get. But that pertains to domestic surveillance and covert operations against Americans for political reasons-third party.
    On the other hand, what would we do without the fbi against the mafia(s) and other criminals?
    The “truth”/best position seems to be somewhere in between.
    I wonder about myself if I were a cop. I wouldn’t want to have to make split second life or death decisions only to be second guessed by anybody later.
    Peregrin peckerwood is just following in lockstep the standard leftist rhetoric, like Cookie.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Robert, having law enforcement officers second guessed is only THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

      Ever read the Bill of Rights?

      1. Robert Milnes says:

        J Whiff…I mean Clifford,
        Swing and another miss! And I threw you a softball.
        You crack me up, LOL!
        I tell about fbi surveillance and covert operations against me most of my adult life AND fbi recruiting the Mossad against third party people, who then recruit various jewish Americans as needed who are ZEALOUSLY eager recruits, ESPECIALLY leftists, including you almost certainly…not a peep!
        But don’t get on the bad cops bandwagon and you SQUEAL like a stuck pig!
        Yes, I’ve read the Bill of Rights. While I was in federal prison along with The Age of Surveillance by Frank J. Donner, a commie!
        Yes the prison law library, sparsely used by various jailhouse lawyers filing various lawsuits motions etc., most of which are promptly DENIED. Judge Giles liked to sign his name in huge letters. LOL!
        I don’t remember the words law enforcement or police mentioned at all.
        The FOUNDATION of American Democracy you say?
        Police may very well not even be mentioned in the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, IIRC.
        What else do you think you can teach me about the bill of rights/Constitution?

      2. Leroy says:

        I really don’t know why you bother.

        His “own” people (Libertarians, Green Party, etcetera) completely disown him – as a fruitcake desperately in need of mental health care.

        If there are people here who take his rants seriously, then maybe some housecleaning is in order (this garbage is way beyond differences of opinion; the First Amendment does not permit yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is none).

        1. Robert Milnes says:

          You clearly are a plant by the Zog to discredit me and get me banned from this site.
          Then any other site I might comment on.
          A general smear campaign by the ZOG.
          Going back at least as far as the beginning of now jewish owned IPR and paulie banali. I say let’s investigate YOU, you Zionist lackey pig.
          Then ban YOU from here and any other site you spew your pro Zionist Israeli mossad murderers mad circumsizers trash propaganda at.
          You may very well be paulie. Certainly have his m.o.
          irregular times ers, get this pig off my back.

          1. Robert Milnes says:

            The green and libertarian parties are infiltrated and controlled bt The ZOG.
            So naturally they “disown” me. Just like jewish owned IPR Warren Solomon and run jewish paulie cannoli banned me.

          2. Robert Milnes says:

            Leroy, I’d like my foreskin back please.

          3. Leroy says:

            In this Age of Information, ignorance of the facts is a PERSONAL choice – a choice made voluntarily and intentionally based on bias, discrimination, and prejudice.

            And, ignorance in the Age of Information is absolutely offensive, in fact offensive to the point of being an abomination!

            And as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said (on more than one occasion and paraphrased after by many others), “You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are NOT entitled to your own facts!”    

            Do not bother with responding in search of an argumentative response as in a battle of wits and logic, I refuse to debate an unarmed person!

          4. Robert Milnes says:

            Seems to me I’ve seen these words before in a previous comment by Leroy.
            Say it enough times and it becomes true, eh Leroy/Jason sock puppet?

  5. Jason H. says:

    Mr. Wood,

    Wasn’t there another Irregular Times article about how – in just a few cities – there had been a rise in more serious crimes over the recent past? And something about how that article was being misinterpreted by many as part of the ongoing scare tactic to show that serious crime is on some kind of drastic increase?

    I am just going from memory here, so not 100% sure on that.

    But if that is so, couldn’t this information as provided by the FBI Director be the real reason why, in certain places, the serious crime rate has gone up (and probably minor crime rate and traffic tickets too)?

    Thanks for a very good article. I agree with your position completely.

  6. Jason H. says:


    It isn’t always truth, justice and the American Way, eh?

    Detective: ‘Hero’ cop sought hit-man to cover up thefts:

Leave a Reply

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

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!