The Washington Post slanders a sheriff who opposes Black Lives Matter
One of the most heartening things in the past week was to learn that the Washington Post had given up the fight and settled with Nick Sandmann, the 16-year-old boy it slandered as a racist because, while wearing a MAGA hat, he smiled when a creepy-looking Native American man got into his face and started drumming. Although the dollar amount is unknown, people instinctively feel that the WaPo had to dig deep. With an article it published on Wednesday, the Washington Post may have just set itself up for another lawsuit and (God willing) another expensive settlement.
The offending article is entitled "A Nevada library wanted to back Black Lives Matter. The sheriff said he wouldn't respond to 911 calls there." Under that big, black-letter heading is a picture of a smiling white sheriff, in his uniform. Immediately under is this text:
Douglas County, Nev., Sheriff Daniel Coverley threatened to stop responding to 911 calls at a local library after its leaders drafted a statement in support of Black Lives Matter. (Douglas County Sheriff's Office)
The article then tells its readers the following story:
The Douglas County, Nev., public library wanted to take a stand this week: "Everyone is welcome," read a proposed diversity statement, which added the library "denounces all acts of racism, violence and disregard for human rights. We support #BlackLivesMatter."
But Douglas County Sheriff Daniel Coverley quickly took a stand of his own.
"Due to your support of Black Lives Matter and the obvious lack of support or trust with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, please do not feel the need to call 911 for help," Coverley wrote in a letter to the library published Monday. "I wish you good luck with disturbances and lewd behavior."
The WaPo also tweeted out the article, again highlighting the sheriff's picture:
A Nevada library wanted to back Black Lives Matter. The sheriff said he wouldn’t respond to 911 calls there. https://t.co/uHqdAk19ee— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 29, 2020
The tweet garnered 1.4 thousand comments and was retweeted 6.1 thousand times. The comments are not nice. These are representative examples:
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick to death of asshole sheriffs thinking they can decide when to enforce the law or what laws they'll recognize.— ChicaLoca (@HaschVivian) July 29, 2020
It's not their city. It's not their police dept.
Fire him.— Midwin Charles (@MidwinCharles) July 29, 2020
And there is no systemic racism in the Police, AG Barr said so yesterday. Guess he was lying again.— Nia (@NiaDeeBee) July 29, 2020
This sheriff is obviously a lowlife and needs to be ruined. There's just one problem: what the WaPo said is a lie. The sheriff never said that neither he nor his deputies would respond to calls from the library. Instead, he sent them a letter suggesting that, if they were going to support Black Lives Matter, consistency demanded that they cease calling the sheriff for help. He never said that the sheriff's office would not respond to such calls.
Coverly's letter was detailed and fact-filled. He talked about data showing that police are not racist and that they regularly risk their own lives to protect people. He pointed out that the Black Lives Matter movement calls police corrupt and racist and is determined to destroy them. Moreover, its hate-filled rhetoric puts the police at risk. It was in this context that he suggested that the library might want to put its money where its virtue-signaling was:
Due to your support of Black Lives Matter and the obvious lack of support or trust with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, please do not feel the need to call 911 for help. I wish you good luck with disturbances and lewd behavior, since those are just some of the recent calls my office has assisted you with in the past. (Emphasis mine.)
Coverly's mistake was in failing to understand that leftists are utterly humorless people who will find any possible offense and take it. Remember that these are the same people who still don't understand that Trump was sarcastic when he asked Russia to find Hillary's 30,000 missing emails. The point was that Russia, China, and everyone else had long since hacked into Hillary's unsecured email account. Literal, humorless leftists still insist that this was evidence of collusion and cyber-crimes.
I would say that the WaPo should be ashamed of itself, but leftists have no shame. When it comes to destroying innocent people on their march to power, they bathe themselves in imagined virtue and then sleep soundly at night.