Al Sharpton and his fellow race hustlers like to stir up trouble on the basis of emotion, conveniently ignoring any facts that run counter to the nefarious agenda they are trying to pawn off on the American public. Part of that agenda is to establish a culture of disrespect for police officers and a disregard for their authority. Unfortunately, it’s a narrative a lot of naïve Americans are buying as evidenced by the spate of anti-police protests that have sprung up across the country. Of course, the mainstream media is only too happy to assist the anti-cop crowd in selling its fictional narrative to the American public. After all, what are a few facts when there are newspapers to sell and television ratings to boost?
When it comes to the portrayal of police officers, the anti-cop crowd is pushing a narrative that goes like this: Cops are out-of-control vigilantes who wantonly gun down innocent black men for no reason other than racial bias. There are more than a few problems with this narrative, but journalists who should serve as America’s fact checkers in these matters are more interested in helping generate controversy than in reporting facts. If journalists did their jobs rather than assisting race hustlers in fanning the flames of racial discord the anti-cop narrative would quickly implode.
You are not likely to hear about it in the mainstream media, but there is a study recently out that belies the anti-cop narrative peddled by Al Sharpton and his journalistic minions. The results of this study show that the anti-cop narrative that is behind the nationwide protests fomented by Sharpton and crowd is nothing but emotion-based fiction. According to the study released in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, in confrontations with criminals police officers are more reluctant to shoot blacks than whites or Hispanics. In other words, if there is racial bias among police officers, it works in favor of black suspects.
According to the study’s author, “This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concern about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.” This statement is politically correct academic double-talk for the fact that police officers have seen the careers and lives of colleagues ruined by politicians and the media when it became necessary for them to use deadly force on a black suspect. The study subjects who expressed reluctance to pull the trigger on a black criminal rightfully fear that the facts in such incidents will be ignored, politics will prevail, and they will be thrown under the bus by self-serving politicians like Mayor BeBlasio of New York. This fear of becoming a sacrificial lamb is so strong—and rightfully so—that police officers are willing to risk being killed by a black suspect who they would shoot if he were white or Hispanic.
The findings of this study raise an interesting question: How many police officers have been killed or wounded in confrontations with black criminals because they were reluctant to use deadly force when it was called for? Shoot-don’t-shoot decisions have to be made in the blink of an eye. To allow fear of unwarranted repercussions to complicate the split-second, life-and-death decisions police officers have to make is unconscionable. They put their lives on the line protecting law-abiding citizens. Police officers should not have to risk their lives or the lives of innocent bystanders out of concern that they will be persecuted because the criminal in question happens to be black.