This article should be about murder. Yet the language used includes phrases like:
“Not charging the white officers,” which leaves a blank regarding what they might be charged for.
“Unlawful use of excessive and deadly force,” which not only makes it clear the author is afraid to use the M word, but which leaves open the possibility for excessive deadly force that is lawful.
“failure to hold police accountable,” which puts the merited punishment for the murders in the same category as what should happen to the mayors, attorneys general and everyone else who has the power to stop the murders and decides not to use the power.
“a death threat is not an acceptable warning,” as if what is really needed is more training to make sure officers understand this.
“address and dismantle the conditions,” as if what were really called for here were a study conducted by a think tank that may (or may not) lead (eventually, at some point) to some changes, maybe in police training, maybe in the way further murders are investigated, but not necessarily to charges of what, when committed by any other person would be CAPITAL MURDER.
This is one of the more outraged writers on the topic I have come across. Yet when even the language of the most outraged is this wishy-washy and permissive, what should we conclude?