You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Stealing From Wal-Mart Is Not a Crime, UW Relations Director Declares
2015-08-25


Everett D. Mitchell is the Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also an attorney, pastor, and community leader.

At a recent panel discussing "Best Policing Practices," Mitchell said that police should stop prosecuting individuals who shoplift from Wal-Mart and Target.

His reasoning? He simply does not believe that police have any justification to engage in policing practices with thieves who steal from Wal-Mart or Target because they are big box stores with insurance:

"I just don't think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Wal-Mart. I don't think that. I don't think that Target, and all them other places -- the big boxes that have insurance -- they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior."

He begins his speech by advocating legal relativism - the notion that communities should decide for themselves which laws be enforced and which laws are not in order to better recognize what safety means for the specific community.

Does Wal-Mart get a say in which laws are enforced, as well Mr. Mitchell? They are, after all, in the community as well.

Watch the 1:18 minute video here (via MediaTrackers.org):

Where is the line drawn with these anti-police activists?

Just a few weeks prior, fellow Wisconsin professors, Karma ChĂ vez and Sara L. McKinnon wrote a letter to the Capital Times (progressive Wisconsin news outlet) titled: Sara L. McKinnon and Karma ChĂ vez: Request for no police interaction is reasonable" In it, they argue that police are an occupying force and have no valid reason to patrol certain neighborhoods.


Posted by:Blossom Unains5562

#18  The federal government's decided that laws on evicting illegals aren't enforced and local governments have decided that upholding laws protecting the country from illegal invaders are not to be upheld either.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2015-08-25 19:19  

#17  Which community sets the standards? The nation, the state, the city, the people who live nearby, the people who shop there, the people who get caught stealing?

If the local community gets to set whatever standards they please, does that mean "Don't let the sun set on you here" signs are permissible?

I gather that whatever Mitchell learned at law school went in one ear and out the other.
...
That's odd: his church has a "Mime ministry". Not the most felicitous phrasing, but I think I get the idea.
Posted by: James   2015-08-25 19:00  

#16  Does Wal-Mart get a say in which laws are enforced, as well Mr. Mitchell?

Sure they do: "I quit."
Posted by: gorb   2015-08-25 14:51  

#15  So, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has insurance, right?
(YARD SALE!!!!)
Posted by: ed in texas   2015-08-25 14:11  

#14  He went on to Princeton Theological Seminary where he earned a Masters of Divinity in Christian Ethics and a Masters of Theology in Social Ethics. Mitchell was awarded the prestigious Princeton Presidential Fellowship and Princeton Seminary’s Jane Swoop Christian Ethics Award for the class of 2003. He also served as the Executive Administrator for the Imani Community Center.UW Bio

I suspect the Christian Ethics is from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright school and the Social Ethics is from the Community Organizer's book of rules. Mentored, no doubt, by Champ, himself.
Posted by: Bobby   2015-08-25 14:01  

#13  Democrats, communists, thieves...same thing.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2015-08-25 12:44  

#12  The Supreme Court has already held that it is OK for unions to break the law. This is just a natural extension of that reasoning.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-08-25 11:56  

#11  BP, the socialists will just rewrite the commerce laws like they did with banking, forcing business to (take loses) open stores in such areas. When you go full blown central planning from the party headquarters capital, it's easy when you play with other people's money and resources (and then you wonder why the rich spend so much money corrupting the system buying politicans).
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-25 10:23  

#10  So what happens when there's no stores in the melanin+law areas?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2015-08-25 10:07  

#9  "Insurance" is the excuse for down playing theft. It's still taking part of one's life, one spent accumulating the resources to procure the goods or property and is never equal to the full costs. It's like taking time from someone's life, a life that is finite and never really recoverable. It's really not a crime against 'property' but against 'life'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-25 09:11  

#8   the notion that communities should decide for themselves which laws be enforced and which laws are not in order to better recognize what safety means for the specific community.

Gee, sounds to me like the basis of all governments. Whether the community decides on a form of democracy, autocracy or tyranny is immaterial.

His question really seems to be the definition of community. Here we have towns, states and feds. As a good tribalist he seems to want separate governments at a much finer granularity.........exactly what community does he lead?

Sounds like academic justification for his desire for his personal tyranny, no?
Posted by: AlanC   2015-08-25 07:55  

#7  Stealing is stealing--it does not follow some boneheaded theory of legal relativism. How does he feel about prison rape? Is it O.K. too?
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-08-25 07:49  

#6  attorney, pastor, and community leader
Credible qualifications.
Posted by: Skidmark   2015-08-25 06:42  

#5  Freelance Socialism. Sharing the wealth AND tearing down the rules. Its a natural evolution of the left mindset.
Posted by: Bunyip   2015-08-25 05:11  

#4  This has nothing to do with money and everything to do with establishing an ugly environment.

This is merely an extension of Trayvon Martin and "hands up don't shoot" mythos. The idea is to establish a precedent that black people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to white people and white people should not be permitted to resist in any way. Period.

Once you understand that this is REALLY what this pastor and everyone else Ike him are really all about - black privilege to be above the law - you understand the real danger of this sort of talk.
Posted by: no mo uro   2015-08-25 04:42  

#3  
Posted by:    2015-08-25 02:43  

#2  Turnabout is fair play. Watch what you wish for. Robbing your house is not wrong either in your bizarre world.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2015-08-25 01:30  

#1  Nor is stealing from employees with "dues" according to this piece of shit.

Then me shooting him in the face isn't a crime as he has life insurance and his family will be set up, right? Same idea isn't it?
Posted by: DarthVader   2015-08-25 00:07  

00:00