I wrote about this yesterday, and happened to come into an update today.
First off, the good news. Outside federal investigators will be brought in to look at the case. That is great, since it may put the whole murder conspiracy to rest. Or prove it. We will see.
There is also more on the conversation with the other inmate in a nearby cell, which casts more doubt to the suicide theory. But at the same time, she was also said to be depressed (who can blame her?).
We will see what comes out of the independent autopsy and investigation. Personally, I am curious about what they may (or may not) find in/on the trash bag (which was the method of death). Her fingerprints on the outside would seem obviously present should the suicide theory be true. But no prints at all (gloves!) would seem to tell an entirely different story.
But again, we will see (have I been watching to much forensic files? Possibly).
But the main purpose of this piece, is to make light of further stupidity being put fourth by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks.
First off, I do get a fair bit of my online sourced news from them (as well as David Pakman and others). And I do know that the coverage is not always, the best. They all have stances I disagree with.
But, as does basically every other media source. Which is why I primarily listen for information, NOT how I should interpret it.
But sometimes the flaws in the stories are so blatant, that they are hard to ignore. Which is the case here.
Cenk decides to take on a recent Fox news segment, wherein Elisabeth Hasselbeck interviews a former NYPD officer, to (I assume) get his take on the incident. He said some interesting things, but for the most part agreed (with progressives) that Sandy Bland’s arresting officer took things to personal.
The thing that irked Cenk (as well as many others in the progressive media, to be fair), was Hasselbeck insinuating that the cigarette could be used as a weapon. The officer backed this up, stating past experience where people have attempted to put out lit cigerettes on him.
Frankly, I believe him. I know that people are capable of doing some very stupid things, so frankly I don’t doubt that someone has tried this at least once.
When it comes to the TYT segment, it was off the rails almost immediately after the Fox segment was over. Rather than consider ANY nuance what so ever, they (Cenk) dove right to the race card. Contrasting the situation to seemingly non-similar cases (boy shot for having a toy gun, man shot while naked, man shot for wearing a hat). And all the while mocking the argument of the cigarette being a weapon. In fact, pretty much insinuating that its only a weapon in the hands of black people.
Alright. As much as I know that Cenk and TYT are with the black community in term of ending racial inequality . . . . this reporting is fucking ridiculous.
I suspect that a lot of it stems around what we all define as a weapon. The obvious things that come to mind are guns, knives, and anything else that can inflict harm to a person. But I suspect that the definition utilized by Cenk (and possibly others) is to narrow, including only weapons of severe or deadly force.
This is what the dictionary says. But this is less important than the criminal code itself. Canada has this definition:
The US broader definition of what constitutes a weapen is proving elusive. Everything that I am coming up with defines a Weapon as various types of firearms. I know that gun crime is rampant in the US, but surly that is not the ONLY weapon ever utilized.
Though I can not actually find the actual provision, I will proceed under the assumption that the United States also has a similar definition of what a weapon is, which would be similar to both the dictionary definition and Canada’s. Because it seems like common sense (I highly doubt that murder or assault is legal, even if a gun is not the weapon utilized).
Given that a weapon is also anything that can be threatening or intimidating to a person, in the case of Sandy Bland, her lit cigarette COULD have been utilized as a weapon.
Now, I HIGHLY doubt that she would have used it as such, don’t get me wrong. But if its happened to her arresting officer before (cigarette burn), than I can’t say I blame him for wanting to have this potential nuisance neutralized. Sure, you can’t kill or severly harm someone with a lit cigarette. But who wants to deal with that?
Since were on the topic of weapons, do you know what else can be a weapon? Spit.
If you spit at someone, it may seem ridiculous to consider that a weapon offence. But it can still get a charge of assult. Even assult with a deadly weapon (since contact with bodily fluids can spread disease).
And in truth, literally ANYTHING can be a weapon. Even a frozen turkey could theoretically be a weapon in some cases.
Given this, I have to say that I side with Fox news, over Cenk.
We don’t know what was going though the officers mind at the time. Frankly, the cigarette as a weapon had not even occurred to me before this. And though were not sure if this interpretation (on the part of the officer) is what sparked the escalation in events, it does make sense. Its far easier to believe than most of the other theories floating around.
While Fox news may be on the wrong side of a great many issues (and the segment itself was not the best), this does not mean that one has to ALWAYS position themselves as far in the opposite direction of them as possible. That is ridiculous!
In fact, when the republicans begun to do it to Obama time and time again on nearly every issue since 2008, the left (Bill Maher) coined the term Black-tracking. Does TYT (and anyone else that engages in this behaviour) REALLY want to be in the same camp as the republicans? The Fox-Tracking media outlets?
Racial equality is an important issue for the United States. I get it.
But does this REALLY mean that EVERY perceived case of police abuse that occurs HAS to be viewed though this lens? Why does race ALWAYS have to be part of the problem?
Now again, I understand that it often IS (a part of the problem). I made note of that yesterday, and in previous pieces I have written. I understand that, so if that is your only rebuttal, kindly fuck off.
My point is, that the racial profiling factor should not ALWAYS be suspect #1. Every time an incident occurs between a white officer and a black civilian, this should NOT be the default assumption.
I get it, most racial profiling is not overt (cops will not say “I am pulling you over because you are black!”). And I get that the racism IS often easy to spot in these incidents, even if not overt. But this does not make EVERY situation like this.
When it comes to Sandy Bland, it is entirely possible.
But the coverage I have seen (from progressive sources) has pretty much assumed the part of racial bias as a cause. To the point of having to bend the facts of the case around their narrative.
I get that #BlackLivesMatter to progressives, as they should to everyone. All lives matter (No, this is NOT a racist statement, so if you believe that, you can also kindly FUCK off).
As important a cause as it is, it is NOT helped by alternative news outlets and activists viewing EVERY remotely comparable incident though the #BlackLivesMatter context. The past 2 segments I shared from TYT (the other on yesterday’s piece) are perfect examples of the risk. The risk being that in both cases, Cenk became so fixated on the role of racism that he did not even CONSIDER anything else. Even the simple definition of a weapon!
Its great that a giant light is finally being shone on the issue of racial injustice and inequality, but for fuck sakes . . . . . tone down the ideological rhetoric.
You are not helping ANYONE by labeling those that say egalitarian things like “All lives matter” as racists, or shouting down past civil rights activists like Bernie Sanders.