In my last entry, I cited a Washington Post story on the President's remarks about the hooligan-driven anti-police rioting in Baltimore. I noted that the President seemed to enter the Twilight Zone in taking the view that "long stints in prison" for Baltimore's criminals have contributed to its problems. In fact, keeping criminals off Baltimore's streets is one of the few things that has helped alleviate its problems.
But the Post's reporting is none too swift either. The Post's story says:
For Obama, there is a certain sense of déjà vu as Baltimore struggles with the aftermath of another death of a black man, apparently at the hands of police and seemingly without any crime having been committed.
Many critics believe Obama did not show enough passion or persuasion to connect with or restrain angry African Americans after the killing of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo. Instead, Obama sounded calls for restraint, lawful demonstrations, commissions of inquiry and slow, steady progress toward reform.
Where to start?
First, in Ferguson, a crime most certainly had been committed, and was caught on tape (here, starting at the 1:26 mark). The crime was Michael Brown's stealing a few items from a convenience store, then forcibly shoving and menacing the store clerk -- a man half his size -- when the clerk confronted him. This is not to mention Brown's scuffling with and resisting the policeman.
Second, the President's own Justice Department concluded that the officer involved in Ferguson, Darren Wilson, did nothing for which the law should hold him to account. To the contrary, the credible evidence, gathered both by a local grand jury, and the Department's left-leaning Civil Rights Division, showed that Wilson acted in self defense when Brown came at him.
It had zip to do with race. Brown was bigger than your average NFL player. Wilson had more than enough reason to fear imminent serious bodily harm or death -- the time-out-of-mind legal basis for using deadly force in self-defense.
Third, the Administration showed, not too little, but too much "passion and persuasion" in all but publicly pre-judging Wilson before its investigation was even underway. This is the same Administration that, in the case of deserter Bowe Bergdahl, dragged its feet for months and was careful to remind the country of the need to wait for all the evidence.
Officers from the White House, no less, attended Brown's funeral. I am all for members of the executive branch showing respect for crime victims and their families, but the Administration's move was grossly out of line -- Brown was not a crime victim, but himself a criminal (albeit a small time criminal). The White House signaled that Brown's race, and Wilson's, was more important than either man's behavior. One can scarcely imagine a more toxic message.
Fourth, exactly what "reform" does the Post think the country should be pursuing in light of Ferguson and the rock-throwing hooligans in Baltimore? That we should repeal the law of self-defense? That it should not be available when a black person is confronting a white one? That it should not be available to the police?
The Post's biased and (frankly) ignorant reporting of a major, racially incendiary story is not as bad as the President's upside-down view of it. But it's none too good, either.
Leave a comment