Radical Left Won’t Quit the Cops Are Racist Reflex

Because They Don’t Want To

The radical left is simply incapable of resisting its reflexive need to accuse cops of racism. Isn’t this accusation stale by now, anyway? I mean, as the saying goes, if everything and everyone is racist, then nothing and no one is racist. But don’t forget the neo-Marxist-Democrats’ objective. The truth is not the goal; creating and peddling an anti-police mythology is the goal. And they do it because it still works on enough people.

With zero evidence, the radical left continues its frivolous attacks on cops who are literally just doing their jobs. For example, recently, FOX News reported a story from San Francisco. No surprise. Although, we could have found similar reports from any blue-hued American city.  

Radical leftists are accusing a group of San Francisco PD (SFPD) cops of “racial bias” for arresting a man “solely for being Hispanic.” Okay, I’ll admit it. He is Hispanic, but it looks like he kind of did some other stuff, too. That other stuff, by the way, the group making the accusations knew about but intentionally omitted.

One of that stuff—those stuff—stuffs—whatever, is the suspect shot at officers with a “realistic prop gun,” firing blanks (which the cops could not know). Besides, could the gun have been loaded with real bullets? Would you bet your life that it wasn’t? Ask Alec Baldwin what he thinks). Officers returned fire because that’s what cops do, even when they only think someone is shooting at them. Doesn’t that make sense?

This man’s reckless behavior sparked a “53-minute standoff” with officers, after which the incident concluded with the suspect’s arrest and no injuries reported. How did the guy not get himself shot by the cops?

Because this is yet another incident that proves how restrained cops are about using deadly force even when it’s justified. Now, of course, some radical leftists are upset the police arrested the suspect at all.

But isn’t this at least a case of reckless endangerment, as officers returning fire (with real bullets) would have placed bystanders at risk? That wouldn’t have been the cops’ fault, though. The suspect would have been at fault for creating the risk. Also, it’s not about what the suspect knew about the gun at the time (that it was a prop); it’s about what the people/person at the other end of the gun thought at the time (that it was real).

But knee-jerks will do what knee-jerks do (with an emphasis on jerks): accuse the cops of arresting the man, exclusively motivated by racism. Aside from stale, isn’t that accusation, in and of itself, pretty damned racist?

FOX reported, “On Wednesday, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office announced a claim against police under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA) (Yes, it sounds made up), alleging that police initiated the stop ‘for no apparent reason apart from his race.’”

Oh, FF’sS!

Hell, I’m rejoicing (you know, because it’s Christmastime and all), though, that it’s not the prosecutor’s office making the claim against the officers rather than the defense. If voters hadn’t kicked Comrade Chesa Boudin out of the SFDA’s office, it probably would have been. Like other failed leftist Democrats, he’s gone on to the elite halls of academia to run the law school at Berzerkley.

The SF Public Defender’s Office (SFPDO) is using the scam cited above, the CRJA, to persecute the cops. But don’t worry; it’s not political at all, is it? Just listen to the language below, and ask yourself, who talks like this in real life?

The SFPDO said, “‘Corvera…was unjustly singled out by the police based on racial serotypes linked to Latinx people, poverty, and their rights to possess personal belongings,’ the filing alleges. ‘It was unfair and prejudicial to presume that his possession of two bicycles instead of one must be connected to a criminal act.” Quite clairvoyant, aren’t they, with their presumptions? “Latinx?” Even Latinos don’t like that word.

I’ll give it to them that they were not hiding their racism when they also wrote, “It’s extremely unlikely police would have treated a white person the same way.” What kind of legal theory is that? How can anyone take these people seriously? They create a myth and then treat it as if it’s reality and act as if they’re not only clairvoyant but also omniscient.  

And just as with the mass murderer who ran down people at a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in 2021, and the leftist media blamed the SUV, the SFPDO wrote, “It [the gun] went off three times….” They couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge the suspect pulled the trigger. I didn’t read any passive language from them that the cops’ guns “went off.” No, instead, according to that group, “Police sprayed the residential area with bullets….”  

They also condemned the “aggressive, militarized response that put local residents in danger.” They were aghast that the police thought someone was shooting at them (a good reason to think that), and the cops brought “two military-style armored vehicles to the scene.”

What these people know about police work could fit comfortably on the head of a pin. Yes, I’m aghast at their ignorance. Well, it’s not all ignorance. While they are ignorant about police work, providing them with knowledge won’t help because they simply don’t like the police or anything they do—except maybe when they die in the line of duty. They want something different for America. I think they call it Marxism. But first, they need a revolution. So, they need to weaken the police and the American justice system while strengthening the criminals.  

Now, I will agree that, normally, possessing two bikes does not establish probable cause (PC) for an arrest or even reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop under normal circumstances. However, the SFPDO is disingenuous when it intentionally neglects relevant facts officers must consider when determining reasonable suspicion or PC to stop someone.

For example, why are these lawyers disregarding the inconvenient fact the officers were investigating a reported bike theft that had just occurred in that area? Or is that not relevant? They know it is.   

I remember incidents on the job where I would stop someone based on similar facts. Normally, while the people we stopped were not happy about it, once we determined the person was not involved in the crime, they’d go on their way. It’s called police work. As much as radical leftists would like it, cops can’t only stop or arrest people who shout, “I DID IT!”

I remember once looking for a suspect who’d dine-and-dashed from an IHOP restaurant. The description was of a black male wearing a yellow shirt and purple pants. So, my partner and I were driving a few blocks from the restaurant, and we saw a black male wearing a yellow shirt and purple pants. Long story short, we stopped him, determined he was the wrong guy, in a yellow shirt and purple pants, and sent him on his way (to be fair, those are the University of Washington’s colors).

Wouldn’t we have been negligent if we hadn’t stopped him? Today, would some radical leftist organization accuse my partner and me of being racist because I’m white and he’s Asian, but the suspect was black? Would they accuse us of stopping him only because he was black while ignoring that he was wearing the same distinctive colored clothing that the suspect description indicated? These days, who knows? Seattle is no better than San Francisco (Yeah, the race to the bottom is tight).   

Back in San Francisco, when the police contacted the suspect, instead of cooperating, reportedly, he ducked behind a car and drew the (unknown to the cops) prop gun ( prop gun does not necessarily mean the gun is not real or dangerous—think about Brandon Lee killed by someone firing a prop gun).

If you’re wondering, riding one bike while pushing another bike in an area where a victim just reported a bike theft and then ducking behind a car when you see the police is what cops call hinky. It’s at least reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop. And when the suspect drew his (realistic) gun, that’s what cops call a reason to draw their guns. And when they hear gunshots, that’s a reason to return fire rather than waiting to find out if he’s firing real bullets.   

What if your bike had been stolen from your property, and the cops saw a guy just up the street not only riding a bike (not necessarily suspicious) but also pushing a second bike (suspicious)? Would you prefer the officers not stop the guy for a little chat because he’s probably legit?

Anyway, the lefty public defender’s group emphasized that the suspect was “mentally ill.” Well, the cops might think that, too, but does that matter here? You can say you heard it here first, but mentally ill people steal bikes, too. And, reportedly, they also shoot at cops with a prop gun firing blanks. Cops act based on a suspect’s actions, whether they’re mentally ill or not.  

These radical leftists are also trying to rely on the fact the prosecutor didn’t charge the suspect with bicycle theft. Well, at least two reasons spring to mind. One, maybe the “extra” bike wasn’t stolen—or hadn’t been reported stolen at that time. Regardless, the suspect didn’t give the officers a chance to investigate, did he? And, two, SF prosecutors still don’t exactly have a stellar reputation for charging certain people with certain crimes.

Think of it this way: Apparently, the cops were so bloody racist they spent nearly an hour in a standoff with the guy. And ask yourself about this truly head-scratching part of the incident. The cops didn’t kill him. Hell, they didn’t even wound him. Now, I don’t like to disparage other cops, but if you ask me, that makes the SFPD pretty pathetic at the whole being racists thing.