I posted this Reply but noticed you cross posted here too. So I figured I would post it here as well.
Hawk, I think you miss the mark in your post. Law enforcement is not immune from the law. When police officers cross the line they are punished. Justin Volpe received 30 years for assaulting Abner Louima. Charles Schwarz received a 15 year sentence, later overturned on appeal. Several other officers were charged and tried. The officers in the Amadou Diallo shooting were indicted, tried and acquitted. All of the officers involved in the Sean Bell shooting were all indicted, tried and acquitted. Justice does not mean a conviction; Justice means the system works, that the process is adhered to regardless of race, etc. The problem is that too many equate justice with only obtaining a desired outcome. That is not justice. When evidence is presented to a grand jury and they decide not to indict, or evidence is presented at trial, and a jury decides not to convict, that is still justice. While we can second guess the outcome, we were not on the Jury (or Grand Jury). We did not hear the evidence, or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. It is not our call to make. Yet, the media, and to many politicians convict before the evidence is presented. This has led to the situations we have in Ferguson and in New York.
While I agree with you that DiBlasio is not directly responsible for the shooting of these two officers, he is guilty of losing control of his police department. Since he was candidate DiBlasio, he has spoken out against legitimate police tactics. He has vilified the Police Department in comments, dating back to early 2013. The Mayor lost the situation when he presumed that Eric Garner’s death was racially motivated. There was no evidence, other than the fact that Garner was Black and officer Pantaleo was white to presume racism. By painting the situation as racist, he condemned the entire NYPD as being a racist institution, including the 16% of the force that is black, the 24% that is Hispanic, the 4% that is Asian. Lynch is responding DiBlasio’s overall attitude against the police.
Turning to your moral equivalency argument, there is a major difference between saying that Sharpton is complicate in the recent execution, and saying that Hanity is complicate if a white supremacist targets law enforcement. Sharpton is purposely making speeches to garner a reaction. He wants people to react to his words. To protest. To Act. Did he want murder, I don’t believe so. Doesn’t help his cause. However, action is his goal. And when your words are vitriolic that they inspire hate and criminal behavior, you have to take responsibility. Hanity, etc., is not there to inspire action. He is a political commentator. He is there to discuss an issue, to be provocative. His words are not designed to inspire negative actions, and he would be the first to condemn a negative action someone took citing his words as the cause. There is no moral equivalency argument here.