Stay In Your Lane
Darryl Campbell is the latest pushing an agenda based on false narratives and made up facts. Recently writing for GQ Magazine, a magazine that deals with $700 Corinthian leather gloves with a $9,000 belt to match, decided to add it’s two cents to the recent debate between law enforcement and minority communities. And just like when ever other person steps outside their lane, they screw this one up big time.
The article was based around Mark Hughes who was the African American man walking around the Dallas Black Lives Matter March with a rifle. This was just before 5 cops were brutally slain but then again that isn’t what the article is about.
The article begins by explaining basic open carry laws in Texas. It’s mentioned how it’s a gun owners dream. That is of course if you are black. He later completely contradicts his own nonsense.
[sc name=”Article Mobile Ad” ]
He also brings up the Philando Castile shooting and describes the entire incident as if he was there. This is the incident not caught on film which was followed by an eerily calm female telling her Facebook followers what transpired. A little effort by Mr. Campbell would have revealed that what she said in the live feed didn’t jive with her press conference the next day. That press conference was then inconsistent with the all news crews on board interview she gave the day after that. Yet he takes it as gospel when she says that Castile was following orders from police and was shot nonetheless. He has no evidence to back this up. He naturally fails to mention the insane resemblance between Castile and a subject that committed an armed robbery just days earlier on the same street he was traveling on, just blocks away. A photo which was shared department wide at the police roll call before the shift began. Campbell later quotes the target of the article, Mark Hughes, saying that Castile had a license to carry a firearm. This fact has not been confirmed by any government agency, again, just blindly trusting what the female in the video said. Even if he did have one at some point, it also could have been revoked at the time of the shooting.
Campbell then goes on to next bring up police involved shootings, all justified by the way, to prove some sort of point….I think??? I have no idea. Campbell doesn’t mention the most questionable police shootings of Walter Scott or Laquan McDonald. He must have been out sick that day (see, even cops don’t agree with all police involved shootings). He describes Hughes arriving at the rally and observing police officers looking at him. A feeling he describes as “cold”. Yet the police did nothing. Instead an officer approached him and began having a friendly conversation as a fellow gun enthusiast. Nothing was done or said in regards to Hughes, a black man, open carrying a rifle. Maybe your “cold” feeling actually proves his bias. No rights were violated and he proceeded to describe the march as “phenomenal”.
Campbell then moves the article to the shooting. He states that Hughes’ brother Cory immediately notices that the shots are coming from rifle fire, either an AR 15 or an AK 47. Does Campbell even stop to think that officers at the scene might also recognize the sounds as rifle fire? Wouldn’t common sense or any kind of logic lead a rational person to remember that person they saw carrying a rifle earlier? Hughes, nor Campbell, describe any other non-law enforcement participants open carrying a rifle. Maybe if a thousand people were open carrying long guns, you might have a point that Hughes was singled out. But you didn’t note that so I assume it didn’t occur. Again, simple common sense.
Campbell also leaves out the most important part of the Hughes incident. Citizens approached police and provided that famous photo of him with his rifle. It was other citizens who identified him as the shooter. Police did not snap that picture themselves. And the whole being black part is irrelevant because the shooter, a dedicated racist piece of filth, was black. Anyone seen carrying a rifle would have been a suspect at that point. Police didn’t know where the shots were coming from. The one thing that was known was that bodies were dropping, all cops, all heroes.
Remember the common sense thing? And not a lot of common sense mind you, just simple common sense. Well Hughes displayed a ton of it by finding the first officer he saw and turning in his rifle so as not to be confused as a combatant. He and his brother then proceeded to the outer perimeter and assisted people who were trying to flee the carnage. This was widely reported that night and the Hughes brothers should be commended for doing everything they could to maintain order in the midst of chaos. So even as the reports were flying about Hughes being a suspect, there were other reports, live reports, of him actually being a hero. Confusion is the order of the day during incidents half as chaotic as that one.
Campbell’s next quest is to prove just how bad the police are. It is explained how others told Hughes that he was a suspect. Hughes then approaches an officer who by the way had no idea about the Hughes photo. Right there, without even trying, Campbell shows the chaotic nature of active shooter situations. Communication is non-existent. No one was looking for Hughes. No one was hunting for Hughes. And Hughes was not a black man with an “X on his back”. Complete and utter BS.
He then explains how Hughes was transported to the station and interviewed by detectives. The big bad meanies took a hard line with him and what was his defense? That he had a cop’s business card? Are you serious Campbell? Were police suppose to know at that moment that Micah Johnson was acting alone? Even the photo posted by the police lists him as “one” of the suspects, meaning they thought there were more than one. Hell, at that time, they hadn’t even identified the shooter. No one knew what was going on and in the heat of battle, no matter how trained and zeroed in, it feels like shots are coming from every direction. But detectives shouldn’t have interrogated him because he used the defense that no other person has ever used in the history of ever!! It wasn’t me. And his absolute nitwit of an attorney lashes out saying that police shouldn’t have questioned him without his attorney. You must have left out the part where Hughes stated that he asked for an attorney. Dallas PD records interviews in either video or audio. I also failed to see where you put in an open records request for that video or audio recording.
Campbell speaks of the endless death threats that Hughes has received since that awful night. He fails to provide the endless police reports that Hughes most definitely must have filed in regards to those threats….right? Most threats are easily traceable in the digital age. The numerous arrests should match those endless threats.
And an apology? For what? The police did their job. The police were provided with the photo from the public. The police cleared him publicly. His rights were not violated in any way, shape, or form. And naturally he tries to place the cops and the NRA in the same boat, on the same side. And boo hoo, the NRA didn’t apologize to him. Cry me a river dude. Speaking of talking points, Campbell has to throw in the Trayon Martin shooting because that was done by a cop right?
You know what would have been a violation Mr. Campbell? If the very first time that Hughes was observed with that rifle, long before the shooting began, he had been stopped, frisked, disarmed, taken in for questioning, etc. Then and only then, you might have a point on the whole 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to black guy’s thing. You fail sir. You fail on all counts.
But here is where you didn’t fail. Here is where you proved our point all along, accidentally and unintentionally I’m sure. You write of a black man carrying an AR 15 in public. You very minimally write about the carnage and slaughter of police officers. You write about a black man who did his part as a true American citizen in finding the first police officer he saw and proving that he was not a threat by turning over his rifle. You write about a black man who then sought police when he learned that a photo of him being a suspect was being circulated through social media. You write about a black man who put up no fight and no argument, willingly going to the police station to meet with detectives. You write about a black man who agreed to be questioned without an attorney, answering questions truthfully with no resistance. You write about a black man who was then cleared by police and released.
Do you see what you did there? You wrote about the one thing that no other suspect had done in your listed police involved shooting deaths. He complied. He did not resist. He did everything that he was required to do by law, as a citizen of the United States. And guess what? It worked itself out. He complied, using common sense, and everything was sorted out. Imagine that. In trying to continue this never ending BS rhetoric and BLM agenda, you actually proved what we’ve been saying all along. You sir, need a new line of work.
You could stick to what GQ does best. Write about extremely fit, metrosexual males. Write about $2,500 hair gel. Write about socks made of pure platinum that cost more than a new pickup truck. Write about that million dollar bow tie made of West Australian ostrich skin. Crime, law enforcement, and more importantly truth, are not your strong points.
Stay in your lane.