The Bias Against Police

 

It used to be that law enforcement personnel involved in shooting someone were presumed to have reacted justifiably.   If challenged, they were given the benefit of  doubt.  But, of course, police involved did not always deserve it.  Abuses were indeed excused.  The public’s bias was overwhelmingly pro-police.

No more.

Now, for many, including the general media, the bias is against law enforcement.

I am not referring to the “Al Sharptons” of the land.  They are seemingly the first to proclaim police brutality whenever a Black person is shot by a police officer the instant they receive the news.  “Rush to judgment” is too kind.  No judgment is involved.

But the change in attitude by many has its roots in the prevalence of video “evidence” these days.

When we see a Minneapolis police officer with a knee on a suspect’s neck or a person shot multiple times in his back, the conclusion of police misconduct jumps out.  We saw what we saw, isn’t that enough to conclude accordingly?

Not necessarily and that belief can indeed amount to a genuine rush to judgment.

Would you think the same if you knew that before George Floyd was on the ground, he told the police that he was on drugs and repeated many times the phrase “I can’t breathe?”  This was before he was pinned down.

Or how about the fact that prior to reaching into his car, Jacob Blake refused police commands to stop?

Place yourself in a police officer’s shoes.

Was Floyd simply ranting in a drugged state a meaningless expression that wasn’t true?  Would you have been unreasonable to think so?

Why would Blake refuse the commands to stop and instead reach into the car?  Was he trying to get a gun?  Would you, with your weapon pointed at his back, bet your life that he wasn’t?

These are considerations which should occur to any experienced person.  So why don’t we hear more about the other side to recorded police shootings?

The media, with very few exceptions, seem inclined to take the video they see at face value.  Fox News is pro-police in the old-fashioned sense and can be counted on to be skeptical.  CNN, is more representative and can be expected to portray targets of police shootings as “victims”.  [The network has one stark exception.  Michael  Smerconish, who has a Saturday morning talk show on CNN, is liberal-leaning but fair, and trained as a lawyer.  He has criticized the press coverage in both of the cases cited above as a rush to judgment.]

The press has been exacerbating racial tension in this country as well as inciting violence by  failing to provide proper context.  Offering a forum for “victims” families to castigate police without providing a differing view is irresponsible news reporting.

It is dangerous as well.