Common Sense and Crime

For many Americans—from a variety of backgrounds and racial-ethnic heritage—the recent coverage by the mainstream media (MSM) of two deaths involving violence seems to be far more about political agendas than fairly reporting on matters associated with the two specific violent events.  

The commonsense view is as simple as believing deciding that how violent behavior in specific events should be viewed ought to be based on a reasonable approach to the facts.  As is often the case, race can dominate the conversation, whether or not the facts justify that approach.

When George Floyd was tragically killed by police officers in 2020, there was near universal condemnation of the actions of the police.  However, when people could see with their own eyes the burning, violence, and theft, supposedly done in the name of social justice, claims by the media that the protests were non-violent and all about social justice seemed a bit off the mark.  Who can forget the night one reporter made the claim things were “mostly peaceful” as the pictures behind him showed a completely different reality?

This week, we have been treated to another example of the MSM substituting their one-sided slanted worldview for applying simple common sense to evaluate things.

Situation one is the not guilty verdict rendered in New York City in the Daniel Penny case.  For those not familiar, prosecutors took him to court on multiple charges that his actions on a crowded subway were illegal and were directly responsible for the death of Jordan Neely.  The facts?  The former Marine came to the aid of his fellow travelers being threatened by Neely.  A violent criminal with a long record of breaking the law, often including abusing drugs, Neely clearly was presenting a real threat to those on the subway.  Subduing Neely proved to be a tough thing to accomplish.  Eventually, while still alive, Neely was turned over to the authorities.  In their hands, he died.  No normal person can feel anything other than sorrow for all that happened.

Before, during, and after the trial, the coverage by the MSM has overwhelmingly sided with the prosecution, arguing essentially that only racism stood in the way of a guilty verdict.  You see, Jordan Neely was an African American.  I don’t know about you, but if an individual who already had demonstrated his willingness to be violent threatened me, my concern would be the same if the individual was a green Martian or anything else.  The man needed to be stopped.  Guess what? I think this view, not race, is what led a mixed-race jury in New York City to find Penny not guilty.  Another thing, I bet is that a significant majority of Americans agree with me.  They find the protestations of a bunch of smug elitists offensive and out-of-touch.

Last Wednesday, the CEO of United HealthCare, Brian Thompson, was gunned down in front of his hotel in the heart of Mid-Town Manhattan.  The killing had all the appearances of an execution.  His sin?  He was leading an insurance company whose turning down of claims had enraged more than one person.  

Later, we learned that Luigi Mangione stood accused of this brutal crime.  Before and after the crime, Mangione proudly claimed this killing was justified.  This thought was embraced by a great many on the left, including the MSM.  Taylor Lorenz, formerly of the Washington Post, bragged this killing made her smile.  Not to be outdone, the ladies of The View also indicated that this killing reflected how angry Americans were with their healthcare.  So, the killing is the logical extension of being how upset we are about our health insurance?  Most of we “normies” find that to be shocking to hear and absurd to believe.

Situation one.  An individual with a history of violence and drug abuse is threatening to those traveling with him on the subway.  A former Marine subdues the man.  Eventually, he sadly dies.  Basic line of argument by the MSM?  Only racism can account for a not guilty verdict, since the victim was Black.  

Situation Two.  A business executive, with a wife and family, with no history of criminal behavior, is executed by an individual upset with the conduct of the company where the executive works.  The accused is white.  Basic line of logic from a lot of folks in the MSM?  Given the conduct of UnitedHealthcare, as it pertains to paying claims, these sorts of things are going to happen.  Basically, the logic is that if healthcare insurance companies want their executives to avoid being gunned down, these companies need to change their policies.  Not quite “he asked for it,” but close enough. 

Sorry, MSM.  Willing to bet anyone (any money going to the charity chosen by the winner) that any reasonably worded survey questions will yield the results of significant majorities thinking the not guilty verdict was a good thing and the killing of the executive was a bad thing.  Any takers?

Common Sense.  Still a pretty good thing.

About the author: Bill Greener III is a political and communications expert with 50 years of experience.  He has led both the communications and political divisions of the Republican National Committee (RNC), as well as having been instrumental in the development and execution of the program for multiple Republican National Conventions.  Since 1998, he has been the Founding Partner of Greener and Hook, a firm specializing in political campaigns and public affairs advocacy.  In addition, he now is a senior advisor to Immyrse, a programmatic digital advertising firm operating in both the political (Republican Ads) and public affairs (Public Affairs Partners) spaces.  Currently, he resides in New Bern, North Carolina with his wife of 43 years, Leigh, where they celebrate the joy in having four grown children and eight perfect grandchildren.