I haven’t been blogging much for a long time, but I’m still active on the internet and tend to leave comments on sites where that is allowed. In fact, I rarely even bother to read sites where comments are not allowed, I enjoy speaking with someone, not being spoken at by someone.
At any rate, one of the sites I read regularly is Bearing Arms. An online gun magazine. Most of the time their articles are well written and I agree with them, occasionally, however, they tend to go a little overboard. I generally leave comments both when I find something particularly well written, or when I disagree with them.
The latter occurred a week or so ago when they wrote an article comparing two gun cases and drawing a conclusion from them. This irks me as it is a common tactic of the left: compare two different cases without considering all the involved factors and declaring that the difference in outcome is due solely to the social justice cause of the day rather than the underlying factors.
The interesting thing is that they even decried this practice themselves:
Now, it’s always difficult to look at two cases and see all the nuances between the two. What may look like a racial disparity may have more to do with other factors that don’t show up in brief news reports.
And then proceeded to ignore what they’d just said:
That means it’s up to us to call out situations like this, to raise the question of whether police view armed minorities differently than armed white folks, and if they do then oppose it as vehemently as possible.
I left a comment calling them out for this. 7 days later and my comment is still “pending”. Apparently they don’t like me pointing out the issues with their assumptions. For posterity sake, I’m going to re-post my comment here:
You say it’s up to us to call out situations like this, yet didn’t do even the barest research to find out if the differences in treatment may have been warranted.
I’d call that irresponsible. Your implication is that there was bias involved in the disparity of treatment when it is more plausibly explained by differences in circumstances that you could have found with a 10 second internet search.
1. The police had a “credible tip” that Trevan Young was armed and intended to do harm. Why do you think they stopped him? His gun was hidden away…do you think the cops have x-ray vision? He was charged not for carrying the gun, but for carrying it with the intent to do harm.
Kevin Leko, on the other hand, was never accused of threatening anyone, he was just spotted on the roof with the gun.
2. Young refused to stop, resisted arrest, and disobeyed officer’s orders. He was also charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
Leko was drunk, but completely complied with police orders and was arrested without incident.
So your talking about one guy with three charges, one of which indicated he intended to do harm, and another guy with one charge and no indication that he was a threat. I would say that it’s completely plausible that this explains the disparity in bond amounts and I’m more than willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt.
By the way: you do understand that the Police don’t set bond amounts right?
I completely support the gun rights of all Americans and will vehemently oppose any difference in treatment under identical circumstances, but taking two completely different cases and jumping to conclusions doesn’t help anyone…except maybe your click count, so I guess there’s that.