So, Let me get this straight: If you disagree with a particular court ruling – or if the facts as presented and your particular point of view do not correspond to the law or judgment – then it is your right as a citizen to burn, pillage, loot and destroy the property of other citizens who had nothing to do with the decision you disagree with, right?

I’m still not sure I fully understand. If you are caught robbing, beating, raping or killing someone, you should not go to court unless you are convinced the verdict will exonerate you?

Not having served as a member of law enforcement or the judiciary, I am not conversant with exactly how the law is supposed to be enforced, so perhaps one of the individuals who may be apprehended while robbing or looting someone’s business establishment as a means of protest (for something or other) would be able to answer that question. Are police only supposed to enforce those laws that the neighborhood says are in agreement with the local “code”? Only a certain type of crime or criminal should be apprehended and only in accordance with the “homey’s” assessment of his guilt?

I have another more pressing issue: Even if I am guilty, am I obligated to be busted if I am not in the mood, or if I disagree with the arresting officer’s interpretation of suspicion of guilt?

In other words, if the APB gives a description of me and identifies stolen evidence that I have in my possession, am I supposed to simply let the man bust me?

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

I confess that probably sounds dumb to anyone who hangs in “‘da hood,” but, considering the fact that there have been more than 1,500 shootings in Chicago this year (more than 250 homicides and 80 percent of the victims were black), with dozens more blacks shot almost every weekend, I am trying to get a handle on why what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, was so significant that even the president of the United States was concerned enough to address the issue on national television (especially after a grand jury, composed of whites and blacks, decided not to press charges against the policeman for simply doing his job).

Could there possibly be a simple solution to this problem? Based on positions articulated by several spokesmen over the last several days alluding to the “race issue” regarding cops and “da hood,” I believe there is.

In a WND column several weeks back, I introduced a simple one-step solution that would instantly and permanently eliminate charges of “racism” in local law enforcement departments, terminate charges of “racial harassment” by police, stop black teens from being killed by “racist white cops,” end charges of “police brutality” articulated by civil rights leaders and pastors, prevent police having rocks and Molotov cocktails hurled at them and eliminate all marches and protests against “racist” white officers.

My solution? No more white cops responding to distress calls in “da hood.”

If no black cops are available, let the residents handle the situation, or wait until one is available. Only black cops would enter black neighborhoods. Bingo! All charges of racism will cease immediately. It’s simple, Let Ferguson, St. Louis, Chicago and other predominately black “hoods” establish white cop no-go zones.

On the other hand, we could try this.

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact [email protected].

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.