LANCASTER, PA – In an opinion piece written by Heather Mac Donald for the New York Post, the author made quite the indictment against the recent participants from the anti-police protests and riots in Lancaster.
In the article dubbed “Protesters demand cops let themselves be stabbed or shot”, the author intertwines the impetus to Lancaster riots with other riots that have taken place across the country to lend credibility to her believing that the rioters and protesters don’t want police to ever be able to defend themselves from deadly aggressors.
“Sunday’s anti-cop riots in Lancaster, Penn., have made the current de facto rules of engagement clear: Officers may never defend themselves against lethal force if their attacker is a minority. They should simply accept being shot or stabbed as penance” https://t.co/Rg0rq59m5A
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 15, 2020
In the opening of the article, Mac Donald sets the premise with the following:
“If the nation’s police officers walked off the job today, it would be hard to blame them. Sunday’s anti-cop riots in Lancaster, Pa., have made the current de facto rules of engagement clear: Officers may never defend themselves against lethal force if their attacker is a minority. They should simply accept being shot or stabbed as penance for their alleged racism.”
Atlanta police department is so short staffed and demoralized that they won’t even respond to shoplifting or car crashes without injury. They had to call in the state police to work crashes on the freeways.
— blue flu. Jazz❗️? ?️? (@JazzDeeApple) September 15, 2020
The rationale behind Mac Donald’s framing of what she perceives to be the reality of these riots and protests comes from the fatal police-involved shooting of 27-year-old Ricardo Munoz.
The author described the circumstances around that case which has stirred controversy within Lancaster:
“An officer responded to a domestic violence call at a residence where a man had stabbed four people last year. As the officer approached the house, a female escaped out the front door. A man — the suspect from the previous slashings — then emerged and ran at the officer, brandishing a knife over his head. The officer shot him, as the officer was by all appearances legally authorized to do, to stop the threat of deadly force.”
From there, Mac Donald noted how the community response to what seems like a justified officer-involved shooting that resulted in Munoz dying was to immediately riot.
She wrote how Lancaster Police officer were “pelted” with the likes of “bricks, glass bottles, and sharp projectiles ripped from road barricades” and random acts of vandalism and arson transpired.
Mac Donald then pointed to not only what recently occurred in Lancaster as evidence of her theory, but to instances where traffic cops in New York City were attacked for simply asking someone to move an illegally parked car and how a Baltimore Police officer was shot in the stomach for trying to end an unlawful house party in June.
I saw a streamer last night say, after seeing the Lancaster PA bodycam, the cop shouldn't have used lethal force to defend himself and if he died, that was his job.
The Supremes disagree.
— Crayon-Eating War Criminal (@MarineArmed) September 15, 2020
Of course, Mac Donald also made reference to the horrific crime that recently happened in Compton, California where two deputies were simply sitting in their vehicle when they were shot in the face in an unprovoked attack.
According to Mac Donald, these acts of violence against police were further emboldened due to mainstay Democrats not acknowledging the numerous attacks within the recent months:
“Virtually the entirety of the Democratic political class stayed silent this summer as cops became punching bags for criminals and anarchists.”
It makes sense if you define "racism" as "inconvenient for black people getting whatever they want"
— Amormar (@Amormar5) September 15, 2020
She said instead of decrying these sorts of attacks, Democrats were clamoring about how there’s a problem with police being racist across the country:
“Democratic officials and their media mouthpieces droned on about the lethal threat to blacks allegedly posed by police officers — a narrative utterly belied by the facts about police shootings and black crime.”
Mac Donald wrote that efforts by local politicians in various cities, and district attorneys as well, were essentially ignoring misdemeanor cases and/or offenses “so as to avoid prosecuting black criminals.”
She referred to the “narrative” of racism being a widespread problem within policing across the country as being “false” and that if the “political class” doesn’t dispel the racist-policing myth then “we cannot expect officers to continue business as usual.”
That's what they want you to think, that everything is race motivated other then looking at the facts of who the offenders are.
— cpdcoppurr (@cpdcoppurrr) September 15, 2020
Once standard methods of policing, such as proactive policing, is also on the decline and Mac Donald says that it all points back to the racist-policing theory being perpetuated:
“They are already pulling back from proactive policing — understandably, having been told endlessly that such policing is racist.”
In her closing lines on the article, Mac Donald claims that if things continue down this very path, then civility as a whole is at stake:
“Every attack on a police officer is an attack on civilization itself. We are in the process of losing any possibility of civil peace.”
Now this: “The Atlantic” article suggests Republicans better vote for Biden – or else (op-ed)
A rather intriguing op-ed has come from The Atlantic, also known as the outlet that published the widely debunked hit piece on President Donald Trump regarding comments about WWI soldiers who died.
But this op-ed written by Shadi Hamid was aptly titled, “The Democrats May Not Be Able to Concede,” which is in reference to the 2020 elections.
And frankly, the ideas presented by Hamid aren’t only eerie – but some also come off as a warning of sorts.
You got a nice fambly. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to em
The Atlantic Op-Ed: Republicans Have ‘An Interest In Biden Winning’ Because Riots Will Likely Increase If He Loses https://t.co/5qKLlpIxBv
— The_Republican_Professor (@RepublicanProf) September 15, 2020
Among the opening lines of the op-ed, Hamid examined many of the plights associated with 2020, such as the pandemic and economic caveats. But then Hamid pivots to what he’s really worried about in 2020:
“As someone who has argued against catastrophism—I don’t believe Donald Trump is a fascist or a dictator in the making, and I don’t believe America is a failed state—I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result.”
Now, many may be thinking that Hamid is concerned that there would be riots in the streets akin to what cities like Portland have been dealing with for months. And, if that was your guess to Hamid’s worries, you’d be right:
“A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months.”
However, this is where the op-ed by Hamid makes a rather odd turn. In his piece, he suggests that if Republicans desire a return to a degree of normalcy, then they had better vote for Joe Biden:
“For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.”
It’s a sentiment almost reminiscent of the period of the High Middle Ages when the Catholic Church would subject the Cathars to torture in an effort to get them to pledge allegiance to Catholicism even if they neither believed it nor truly wanted it.
And that is an expressed sentiment that is rather troubling.
Hamid’s article continued from there, proclaiming that the election of President Trump in 2016 was a “fluke,” but a 2020 election with the same outcome “would provoke mass disillusion” when it pertains to the electoral college.
From there, Hamid claimed that Democracy is a tool devised to “correct after mistakes” are made during elections – alleging that President Trump was some sort of mistake:
“If Democrats can’t beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump during a devastating pandemic and a massive economic contraction, then are they even capable of winning presidential elections anymore? Democracy, after all, is supposed to self-correct after mistakes, particularly mistakes as egregious as electing Donald Trump.”
"If Democrats can’t beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump during a devastating pandemic and a massive economic contraction, then are they even capable of winning presidential elections anymore?" @shadihamid writes: https://t.co/MDfzNr0DNT
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) September 13, 2020
But Democracy was never devised to “correct” mistakes per se – rather, it was crafted to serve as a tool to create a voice for the representative majority. However, there’s a reason that there’s no true form of democracy in the United States (considering that we’re a Constitutional Republic).
The reason the nation isn’t a true Democracy is because a fine example of a Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who will be eaten for dinner.
The article by Hamid continued in more of a downward spiral from thereon, alleging that somehow people who voted for President Trump in 2016 “betrayed” liberals:
“Liberals had enough trouble accepting the results of the 2016 election. In some sense, they never really came to terms with it. The past four years have witnessed the continuous urge to explain away the inexplicable, to find solace in the fact that the voters betrayed them.”
But in reality – people who cast their votes in any sort of election are typically looking out for their personal interests.
It’s a rather callous characterization to refer to someone voting for President Trump as a vicious betrayal of those who hold liberal ideologies – when that same rhetoric could be levied by President Trump’s supporters against those voting for Biden or who voted for Clinton in 2016.
But what was really exhausting when reviewing this op-ed by Hamid, was when it devolved into Russiagate territory and insulting President Trump supporters as being naïve or uneducated:
“It was easier to think that those Americans had been lackeys, manipulated and deceived, or that they simply hadn’t understood what was best for them. Moreover, the Russians had interfered, and tipped the balance in an extremely close election through propaganda, fake news, and collusion with the Trump campaign.”
It’s rather condescending to have one unfamiliar adult pose to another adult of full competence allege that “you don’t know what is good for you,” which is what Hamid purported when saying “they simply hadn’t understood what was best for them.”
Not only is that insulting rhetoric – it’s also dangerous when examining everything that Hamid crafted in this op-ed.
First, he alleges a second victory for President Trump will leave liberals unable to “accept the result” – essentially a threat.
Then he says Republicans should “have an interest in Biden winning,” even if they don’t want to vote for him – the compromise to avoid the threat.
Hamid then points to a 2020 win for President Trump as being a mistake, when mentioning “Democracy, after all, is supposed to self-correct after mistakes” – meaning you were never supposed to vote for Trump in the first place.
He then implies that those with a Republican mindset are in fact indebted to those that hold opposing liberal views because, in 2016, Republican “voters betrayed them” – which means you didn’t fall in line in 2016, but you had better fall in line now.
And the icing on the cake from Hamid was when he alleged people voted for Trump in 2016 only because they were either “lackeys” (basically tools or minions), “deceived” (you know, easily fooled), or they just don’t know what’s good for them (like a 5-year-old with an affinity for cake choosing their every meal).
Basically, Hamid (and those like him) not only loathe your ideals – they believe you’re uneducated and shouldn’t be allowed to exist in a world where your principles reside and are respected.
_
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
