Police, Media Manipulation and YOU
This is the first piece in a series where I will make my case that the media, and the .gov are working to divide YOU from YOUR local police agency. To what end, so that when the time comes they will have willful participants in violating your rights en masse. National control over local police is the final step of an authoritarian government. It’s what Oath Keepers is fighting against. It’s why part of our mission is to reach, teach, and inspire those who would be asked to violate the Constitution, to say no. This 2009 article references how “a rapid transition to a federalized police force is unlikely here in America, an incremental shift to greater federal control is already occurring. These efforts will be difficult to forestall as Washington plays an increasingly intrusive role in local law enforcement;” illustrating how the push begun long before the Ferguson incident. Here we will discuss the media’s bias and how it is helping to drive that push.
In the last few years police use-of-force has come to the forefront of media coverage. No matter what facts are involved with an officer’s use of force, frequently we find a media bias against the officer, no matter if the officer was legally or morally justified. This bias has developed to score website hits, build ad revenue and sometimes simply as click bait. However, many are seeing a dangerous trend, where the media is being used to manipulate you to believe that you need the .gov to come in and take control of your police force, and consolidate power with the federal executive branch.
Let’s take a look at an officer involved shooting (OIS) that was unquestionably justified, legally and morally, and critique the media’s coverage of the incident. (This video may be graphic and disturbing to some)
April 3rd, 2016, Officer Armando Perez was on patrol when he observed the concierge of an apartment building running after another male. When Officer Perez exited his patrol car, the concierge explained that he witnessed the man breaking into a vehicle. Officer Perez attempts to handcuff the man and a shooting ensues, the below video shows what happened.
This is clearly a legally and morally justified shooting. The officer exited his vehicle to investigate a disturbance, discovers it stems from a crime against someone’s property and attempts to lawfully detain the suspect to sort it out. From the time he pulled up, until the time the first shot was fired (by the suspect) was 40 seconds. Officer Perez performed his job admirably. He was shot in the torso below his vest and is still recovering. However, the media spun this incident as questionable actions by the officer. Local Fox affiliate titled its story as “Officer will not face charges related to shooting death of Darrin Martin.” Never even alluding to the fact that the suspect tried to murder Officer Perez, while also implying that he should have faced charges but was somehow exonerated from a non-existent crime. The local CBS affiliate titled its story as “Name released of APD officer who shot, killed car burglary suspect.” Such a headline has the particular psychological effect of drawing people to the story with the preconception that the would be cop killer was merely breaking into a car. How are these headlines unbiased or fair?
Here are several good examples of fair and unbiased headlines that display facts.
Fox 6 in Sheboygan “2 officers fatally shoot robbery suspect armed with rifle at Sheboygan tavern.”
KTLA 5 in Cleveland “Cleveland Police Officers Cleared in Fatal Shooting of Armed Suspect Recorded by Body Cameras.”
ABC 7 in Houston “OFFICERS SHOOT, KILL ARMED MAN POINTING REVOLVER AT HOUSTON POLICE”
These are clear examples of unbiased headlines written by responsible journalists. There are those that want to drive a wedge between YOU and YOUR local police. Excessive force, overuse of SWAT teams, the drug war and corruption are real issues that must be addressed. We can not afford for those real issues to be overshadowed by sensationalism. We must not buy into the manipulation we are seeing that wants to build its case to convince you to relinquish control over YOUR local police agency. Oversight of police belongs to the people they serve, not politicians in DC. If we want to correct issues with modern policing it starts at the local level.