Omaha Police Officer Bryan Kulhanek has been placed on paid administrative leave by the Omaha Police Department for, as Omaha World-Herald staff writer Nancy Gaarder put it, a "'potentially inappropriate' Facebook post." I'm sorry, but there was nothing "potentially" inappropriate about the post; it was inappropriate, plain and simple. Here's how the condensed version of it read:
"Here's the Cliffs Notes version of my very lengthy post. Let's see if this meets with its standards or if I get sent to FB [Facebook] jail:
BLM [Black Lives Matter] is NOT a pro black group. They are a anti white police group. They are racist plain and simple. Thousands of blacks are killed by other blacks. Innocent black children are killed in the crossfire. Black police officers are murdered. And they are completely silent.
Black parents please stop with the 'I'm scared of my son having contact with police.' You are more likely to be killed by police if you are a white male than if you are a black male. By a ratio of 2 to 1. And for every black male killed by police there are 40 that are killed by other blacks. Blacks make up about 18% of the population and are responsible for 50% of the crime and white males are still killed more often by police. Can anyone name any of them? No. Thanks to the liberal media.
If you have contact with the police and you touch, reach for, or brandish a gun expect to be shot and expect it to be justified. FB police experts, if you want to negotiate or use less than lethal means to subdue a armed suspect go for it. It's not realistic. We are going home to our families.
This is not a police problem, a gun problem, or a race problem. It's a parenting problem..."
Officer Kulhanek, like every other American, has the right to have and voice his opinion. However, also like every other American, while Officer Kulhanek may have his right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from consequence.
First off, I read a number of comments following the article which contended that the Omaha officer was just stating facts. No, actually, he wasn't. Let's run down the list of his inaccuracies:
- According to the census, 13.3% in this country are African-American, while 61.6% are white (77.1% when including Hispanics) (42,748,703 African-Americans compared to 197,993,993 whites, not including Hispanics). Officer Kulhanek was only off roughly 5% here.
- According to the Department of Justice, 42.9% of crimes were committed by whites, while 22.4% of them were committed by blacks. Officer Kulhanek missed wider right here, as he was off by approximately 28%.
- According to the Washington Post, Officer Kulhanek's numbers with regard to those shot and killed by police are misleading, to be kind. Since January 1st of 2015, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by police. Of these 1,502 individuals, 732 were white and 381 were black (48.7% and 25.4%, respectively). Yet, when just looking at these numbers on the surface, we fail to see the fuller context. As mentioned previously, 61.6% of the U.S. population is white and 13.3% is black, so it's quite telling to see just 48.7% of those that have been killed by cops were white, while 25.4% were black. Not only that, but in that same time-frame, police officers have shot and killed an equal number of unarmed white and black individuals, 50 a piece. So, given the populations of each demographic, unarmed black Americans are five times more likely to be shot and killed by cops than unarmed white Americans.
- According to the FBI, while it's true a large majority of black homicide victims are black (2,447 of 2,695, or 90.1%), an almost equally large majority of white homicide victims are white (2,630 of 3,172, or 82.9%), so that begs the question, what's Officer Kulhanek's point?
Beyond the inaccurate numbers Officer Kulhanek posted to try and prove his argument, he's wrong about a number of other things. Black Lives Matter is not an anti-white, anti-police movement. If one is anti-erratic driving, does that make them anti-driver? If one is anti-blind men firing guns at shooting ranges, does that make them anti-firearm? If one is anti-police brutality, does that make them anti-police? No, no, and no again. Just because a person opposes the abuse of power within a group does not mean they oppose the group at large, because the group at large shall not be defined by those who abuse their power. Also, let's not mistake what Black Lives Matter actually means. It's not saying Only Black Lives Matter; it's saying Black Lives Matter Too. So ignorance of a movement's intent doesn't certify it as a racist organization.
Not only that, but Officer Kulhanek seems unafraid to reach into his bag of hypotheticals and generalizations. Is it true that some black men who were shot and killed by police were in fact reaching for firearms? Yes. However, does this somehow prove they all did? No, of course not. What about when a kid was playing around with a toy gun in a park? What about when an unarmed man was running away from cops? What about when a man notified police he was armed but was going to reach for the identification he was asked to retrieve? What about when a man's hands were raised? What about when a man was subdued on the ground? Did they seriously make the cops who killed them fear for their lives?
Lastly, I find it ironically humorous how Officer Kulhanek closes his condensed post, saying, "This is not a police problem, a gun problem, or a race problem. It's a parenting problem..." The man just spent the majority of his post providing inaccurate statistics to paint black Americans as the underlying problem when it comes to crime, gun violence in particular. Then at the end he contends the problem has nothing to do with race. Really? That's like the bass ackwards route to the oft-uttered line, "I'm not a racist, but..."
The typical route: "I'm not a racist, but I'm going to provide false information on black Americans to make them seem naturally violent and to better hide my prejudices."
Officer Kulhanek's route: "I'm going to provide false information on black Americans to make them seem naturally violent and to better hide my prejudices. Oh, by the way, I'm not a racist."
Officer Bryan Kulhanek, like any other American, has the right to his opinion, but when opinions are as blatantly racist and wrong as his are, he also shouldn't have a badge, claiming to protect us all while having a biased lens against some.
http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/opd-looking-into-officer-s-facebook-post-criticizing-black-lives/article_bebbd296-81f4-59c2-99fc-580511551237.html
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/
"Here's the Cliffs Notes version of my very lengthy post. Let's see if this meets with its standards or if I get sent to FB [Facebook] jail:
BLM [Black Lives Matter] is NOT a pro black group. They are a anti white police group. They are racist plain and simple. Thousands of blacks are killed by other blacks. Innocent black children are killed in the crossfire. Black police officers are murdered. And they are completely silent.
Black parents please stop with the 'I'm scared of my son having contact with police.' You are more likely to be killed by police if you are a white male than if you are a black male. By a ratio of 2 to 1. And for every black male killed by police there are 40 that are killed by other blacks. Blacks make up about 18% of the population and are responsible for 50% of the crime and white males are still killed more often by police. Can anyone name any of them? No. Thanks to the liberal media.
If you have contact with the police and you touch, reach for, or brandish a gun expect to be shot and expect it to be justified. FB police experts, if you want to negotiate or use less than lethal means to subdue a armed suspect go for it. It's not realistic. We are going home to our families.
This is not a police problem, a gun problem, or a race problem. It's a parenting problem..."
Officer Kulhanek, like every other American, has the right to have and voice his opinion. However, also like every other American, while Officer Kulhanek may have his right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from consequence.
First off, I read a number of comments following the article which contended that the Omaha officer was just stating facts. No, actually, he wasn't. Let's run down the list of his inaccuracies:
- According to the census, 13.3% in this country are African-American, while 61.6% are white (77.1% when including Hispanics) (42,748,703 African-Americans compared to 197,993,993 whites, not including Hispanics). Officer Kulhanek was only off roughly 5% here.
- According to the Department of Justice, 42.9% of crimes were committed by whites, while 22.4% of them were committed by blacks. Officer Kulhanek missed wider right here, as he was off by approximately 28%.
- According to the Washington Post, Officer Kulhanek's numbers with regard to those shot and killed by police are misleading, to be kind. Since January 1st of 2015, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by police. Of these 1,502 individuals, 732 were white and 381 were black (48.7% and 25.4%, respectively). Yet, when just looking at these numbers on the surface, we fail to see the fuller context. As mentioned previously, 61.6% of the U.S. population is white and 13.3% is black, so it's quite telling to see just 48.7% of those that have been killed by cops were white, while 25.4% were black. Not only that, but in that same time-frame, police officers have shot and killed an equal number of unarmed white and black individuals, 50 a piece. So, given the populations of each demographic, unarmed black Americans are five times more likely to be shot and killed by cops than unarmed white Americans.
- According to the FBI, while it's true a large majority of black homicide victims are black (2,447 of 2,695, or 90.1%), an almost equally large majority of white homicide victims are white (2,630 of 3,172, or 82.9%), so that begs the question, what's Officer Kulhanek's point?
Beyond the inaccurate numbers Officer Kulhanek posted to try and prove his argument, he's wrong about a number of other things. Black Lives Matter is not an anti-white, anti-police movement. If one is anti-erratic driving, does that make them anti-driver? If one is anti-blind men firing guns at shooting ranges, does that make them anti-firearm? If one is anti-police brutality, does that make them anti-police? No, no, and no again. Just because a person opposes the abuse of power within a group does not mean they oppose the group at large, because the group at large shall not be defined by those who abuse their power. Also, let's not mistake what Black Lives Matter actually means. It's not saying Only Black Lives Matter; it's saying Black Lives Matter Too. So ignorance of a movement's intent doesn't certify it as a racist organization.
Not only that, but Officer Kulhanek seems unafraid to reach into his bag of hypotheticals and generalizations. Is it true that some black men who were shot and killed by police were in fact reaching for firearms? Yes. However, does this somehow prove they all did? No, of course not. What about when a kid was playing around with a toy gun in a park? What about when an unarmed man was running away from cops? What about when a man notified police he was armed but was going to reach for the identification he was asked to retrieve? What about when a man's hands were raised? What about when a man was subdued on the ground? Did they seriously make the cops who killed them fear for their lives?
Lastly, I find it ironically humorous how Officer Kulhanek closes his condensed post, saying, "This is not a police problem, a gun problem, or a race problem. It's a parenting problem..." The man just spent the majority of his post providing inaccurate statistics to paint black Americans as the underlying problem when it comes to crime, gun violence in particular. Then at the end he contends the problem has nothing to do with race. Really? That's like the bass ackwards route to the oft-uttered line, "I'm not a racist, but..."
The typical route: "I'm not a racist, but I'm going to provide false information on black Americans to make them seem naturally violent and to better hide my prejudices."
Officer Kulhanek's route: "I'm going to provide false information on black Americans to make them seem naturally violent and to better hide my prejudices. Oh, by the way, I'm not a racist."
Officer Bryan Kulhanek, like any other American, has the right to his opinion, but when opinions are as blatantly racist and wrong as his are, he also shouldn't have a badge, claiming to protect us all while having a biased lens against some.
http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/opd-looking-into-officer-s-facebook-post-criticizing-black-lives/article_bebbd296-81f4-59c2-99fc-580511551237.html
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/
Comments
Post a Comment