Cop shootings no one cares about

Some weeks back I posted about a fishy shooting of a black man by cops in a WalMart, which got practically zero coverage or comment.  Every time I found a brief update in the news, the story got a little uglier for the cops, but for some reason the event didn't resonate with the American public and now has dropped into a deep, dark hole.

This week videotape has surfaced of a white cop shooting a black guy in South Carolina about three weeks ago under nearly inexplicable circumstances.  Again, little apparent interest.

What in the world makes a murky case like Ferguson fertile ground for race riots and national posturing while these other two shootings fall right off the radar?  A cynical view might be that the Ferguson cop wasn't immediately disciplined, while the South Carolina cop was promptly fired and may face 20 years in prison, but that theory doesn't quite work:  as far as I could tell no one has suggested any disciplinary action in the WalMart shooting, which seems hunky-dory with both Al Sharpton and Eric Holder.

It's pretty clear no one should put me in charge of propaganda.  I lack the touch.


MikeD said...

The SC Trooper story is pretty big in my neck of the woods. The reason it's not gotten much traffic nationally is pretty much two-fold. One, prior to and immediately after the shooting, the cop is pretty non-confrontational (as opposed to outwardly hostile), and two the department swiftly and pretty definitively stomped on him. So outrage is hard to gin up (past some claims of "See? They're ALL corrupt" which quickly get squelched by the fact that dude's being charged). "Racist cop on a rampage protected by his peers" in this case does not fit.

raven said...

Why is it that almost every time we hear about some swat raid killing or maiming someone, or some cop shooting someone in error, it is always some chicken shit "offense", that has absolutely no bearing on public safety, that originated the incident?
OMG!- NO SEATBELT!!! this guy.

OMG!- Drugs!! Jose Guarnao (sp)None found btw.

OMG- Knife! some homeless woodcarver in Seattle.

OMG!!- Illegal camping! some homeless guy in Albuquerque. That was particularly obscene- four thugs with dog and rifles killed a mentally disturbed guy from 30 feet away, on rough ground.

Get rid of every damned nanny state interference in our lives and let Darwin take over. It would do wonders for the gene pool. No welfare, no warning signs, no seatbelt and gun laws and helmet laws and leave the guards off the mowers. No drug laws, if you want to kill your self, with dope, fine. Here's some extra strength.

And screw this "officer safety" at all costs BS, the cops are hired to do a job- if it is too much for them to do without imagining they are on Mt Suribachi,or kicking in doors in Fallujah, get rid of them and find others. A certain amount of risk comes with the job, that is what they are paid to do, shooting anyone they remotely consider a risk is not acceptable.

Anonymous said...

The Ferguson story got its oomph from the lies told by the dead man's companion, which were put on UTube and went viral. He said the cops shot the guy in the back after he had surrendered.

I wouldn't be surprised if the robbery was the companion's idea in the first place.


Grim said...

"No one" isn't quite right; I've been reading about both of these quite a bit. I try to limit my criticism of police, though, out of concern for Cassandra's blood pressure; it's something I write about a lot less than I read about it, in the interest of comity. I want to talk about the structural issues that bother me, and sometimes I do, but I try not to hammer on every incident that comes across my desk.

Eric Blair said...

I could fix that, I see these things all the time--and could restart my "Police State: Part infinity" series I used to do.

Honestly, I got tired of documenting it. It was getting too depressing. And of course, Cass would find a way to excuse it every single time.

There was a case in GA of two cops tasering a guy TO DEATH. That didn't get any traction either, probably because to start with, all involved were black.

Really though, it should be obvious that the reason some event gets emphasized in the media over another is the media itself, probably in what would amount to a conspiracy with various political types.

Ferguson got emphasized because they wanted to emphasize it. Pure and simple. If they didn't want to, it would disappear in a day.

Grim said...

It would be a needless duplication of effort anyway. Groups like CopBlock already aggregate police offenses for those who care.

I think Ferguson got emphasized because of the powerful photographs of the police response to the protests. Few care about another police killing of a citizen -- there are hundreds a year. But the riot gear and large scale use of military equipment really shocked people out of their comfort zones.

Eric Blair said...

Yes. I think you are correct. Two pregnant women and a 15 year old female teenager were all shot to death this past week in Philadelphia, all 'not the target' as the news reports go, but all dead just the same, and nobody around here is freaking out. Just typical stuff for poor black neighborhoods.

Texan99 said...

I know some bloggers are paying attention, and no doubt some of us who follow the news closely are doing so. But imagine you were someone who lives for the chance to gin up outrage over white-cop-on-black-citizen shootings: why seize on Ferguson, with its horribly embarrassing facts, and ignore cases like the WalMart in Ohio or the gas station in S.C., which seem to show the police in a much more ambiguous light, and whose victims are considerably more appealing? I don't get it. It seems random. I'd go for the two cases with videotapes that at least raise some troubling questions, but apparently the riot/grievance crowd prefers a case with nothing but improbable eyewitness testimony from a petty thief, and a thoroughly unsavory "victim."

jaed said...

You can't assume that they're thinking the actual facts will come out. (Zimmerman was pretty unflattering for Trayvon Martin, but that didn't stop them from running with it.) The criterion isn't how the facts look, but how they can plausibly be spun.

Now what the exact criteria are I can't say, but I do notice that presenting both Martin's and Brown's grieving parents to the cameras was a big part of the media strategy. Do the two other cases have photogenic parents and extended family members? Are they willing to go before the media and say what they're told to say? That might be part of the reason for selecting one case over another.

Another possibility is timing. Ferguson was recent and it blew up a bit in their faces, so they may not want to promote another case right now.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I have a theory that fanatics actually prefer ambiguous or poor examples, as it helps them sort out who their real foxhole buddies are. Reasonable people eventually get off the train.

Texan99 said...

That is a much better explanation than any than I've thought of. I'm going to have to keep an eye out for that phenomenon.

Ymar Sakar said...

Some weeks back I posted about a fishy shooting of a black man by cops in a WalMart, which got practically zero coverage or comment.

I posted about that months ago. About 1 or 2 weeks before Ferguson.

Of course the MSewerM doesn't give it coverage. Did they give coverage to US Marines fighting for peace and prosperity in Iraq or did they just cover the casualty lists and bombs? In fact, what are the IED and casualty rates in Afghanistan now a days under Hussein the Peace Boy.

Ymar Sakar said...

I don't get it. It seems random.

I suspect it isn't random. I suspect it has to do with money, for Sharpton and Jackson. Those guys only come when they sniff some white man's guilt that they can milk.

Something about various black people dying cases, doesn't apply. As for what, you'll have to ask their accountants.

Ymar Sakar said...

The police state, which is merely an outgrowth of the Left's alliance, isn't caused by Cassandra.

Most people are powerless against the Leftist alliance, but they can't deal with that, so they export their emotions unto other people and sources that are easier to blame. It's easier to cope that way.

The Left's hierarchy has a certain shape and formation, like a chain of command. Most of the people who obey or who are affected by it on the bottom, are not strictly necessary to the function of the system.

The only people that really matters are the overseers and enforcers, not even the top tier leaders. The police may make citizens obey, but there's a force and a cadre that is able to make the police obey. Those watchers are more important strategically.