OK, guys -- here's a link
to the Mac Donald piece that will be valid for a few days -- fair use, IMO. I am genuinely interested in intelligent objections to it.
It needs a rewrite. It's all over the place and misleading.
It seems to be saying in the santy clause (last paragraph) that it's all Obama's fault.
Alan, what's your take?
My take is that, in the end, what Obama said and what Trump said are a sideshow. The main point of the opinion piece is "(The) share of black (fatal shooting) victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects". My gut feel is that's probably true. I also think you can reach that conclusion without being a 'sneaky racist'. Finally, I agree with Mac Donald's concluding remark: "The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd's death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos."
More needs to be done. The problem is systemic.
Actually my "last paragraph" should be "2nd, last paragraph", in particular the first sentence. This is the real punch line/santy clause. If you now jump back to the 2nd paragraph that starts "Joe Biden .... ambush murder of five Dallas officers...". When I read it first time I thought it strange and out-of context. It's sneaky.
And the remark that white police do less killing than black or Hispanic police is nauseating. It's like a no true Scotsman Fallacy example.
99% of police killings brought no one to justice.
I don't know for whose benefit this article was written. Again, how it got into the WSJ is a mystery.