Tags: bart | bay area | police | sandwich | officer mccormick

Disrespect For Police Bad for Society

Disrespect For Police Bad for Society

By Thursday, 21 November 2019 04:20 PM Current | Bio | Archive

This author’s experience is that, upon asking police if they would choose their career again, the majority respond “No.”

How sad, since policing is among society’s most important jobs.

But an incident in San Francisco shows why so many officers can’t wait to hang it up. Rather than doing their job free of politics and prejudice, police often face no-win situations.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer David McCormick was responding to a report of a drunken woman on a train platform. Along the way, he saw Steven Foster eating a sandwich, which is against the law. That fact is not in dispute, though it is being disregarded by darn near everybody. Numerous signs state that eating in BART stations and on trains is prohibited.

Officer McCormick (an Officer of the Year in 2014, and cited for heroism in 2013) respectfully told him that eating wasn’t allowed, and asked him to put the sandwich away.

The search proved fruitless, but Officer McCormick saw that Foster was still eating. The officer asked the man for identification, but Foster refused. Instead, according to BART General Manager Bob Powers, Foster verbally attacked the officer with vulgarities, including homophobic slurs. (Unsurprisingly, there is no outcry from the Left on this point). Foster also claimed he was targeted because he was black.

The officer, following protocol, called for backup and handcuffed Foster while sorting out the situation, since Foster’s name was needed for the citation. The incident was filmed and went “viral.”

The result was BART GM Powers publicly apologizing to Foster, and authorizing a police auditor review of Officer McCormick’s actions.

This is crazy.

So what was Foster’s reaction after being told twice that eating was illegal? “You’re singling me out; I’ve done nothing wrong!” The officer corrected him. Foster’s answer: “So what?” Officer: “It’s against the law.” Foster, again: “So what?”

In an interview with KPIX5, Foster said he didn’t regret anything. Asked if he would eat again on BART, Foster replied: “Hell, yeah! If I’m hungry, I’m going to eat.”

Foster disregards the law, and shows contempt for an officer simply doing his job: “…he can't approach…or talk… to people the way he did, just because he has a badge…I think I was singled out because I was black." He wants Officer McCormick disciplined, and has filed a racial discrimination lawsuit. Naturally, social media “warriors” are organizing illegal “eat-ins” at BART stations.

But the video tells the truth. Watch it here.

So if Officer McCormick legally performed his duties, why the apology? Not only did BART lose leverage in the lawsuit, but it was absolutely misplaced.

Powers, being GM of Political Correctness, stated that he is "disappointed how the situation unfolded. I apologize to Mr. Foster, our riders, employees, and the public who have had an emotional reaction to the video."

Emotional reaction? This isn’t a grotesque murder, Bob. It’s a guy breaking your own rules and being politely treated by one of your own officers.

But Powers is right in one respect. Most people have an “emotional reaction” — to the rule of law being eroded; to an organization throwing its own under the train; to an opportunist milking a situation for a potential financial windfall; and undercutting police in favor of admitted lawbreakers. Who knew San Fran wanted to emulate Philly?

The media is missing the story. This isn’t about police overreach, targeting black people, or nailing someone eating a sandwich.

Race had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Race-baiters don’t understand that the more they bring up race when it’s unwarranted, the more that racial tensions rise, and the more they lose.

Let’s be honest. Foster would not have been cited had he simply done what he was told. Remember that Officer McCormick was not “targeting” Foster, but responding to an unrelated call. But Foster publicly shoved his intransigence down the officer’s throat. Conversely, should the officer have walked away, ceding moral and legal authority to an alleged lawbreaker? If he had, the two-fold message would have been: laws can be selectively followed based on whims, and since police have no authority, their orders should not be heeded.

Had the officer whimpered away after being publicly defied, he would have given BART a black eye. And, ironically, he would have likely been criticized for not doing his job.

This has nothing to do with a sandwich, and everything to do with flaunting an in-your-face “I’ll do whatever I want” entitlement attitude that scorns the law and its enforcers.

Instead of criticizing officers, residents should demand solutions to the city’s mammoth homeless problem, widespread defecation, and drug epidemic sweeping the city.

Let’s get the backs of our police, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re enforcing the law without prejudice. They deserve no less.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, Freindly Fire Zone Media. Read more reports from Chris FreindClick Here Now.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
This author’s experience is that, upon asking police if they would choose their career again, the majority respond “No.”
bart, bay area, police, sandwich, officer mccormick
Thursday, 21 November 2019 04:20 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved