From Fox News:
Officials from BART, the public metro system serving California’s San Francisco Bay area, have come under fire for their refusal to release crime surveillance videos, claiming such tapes will promote stereotypes and “stir up racial animosity.”
That’s a pretty funny statement for BART to make.
I mean, Not Reporting Race is definitely a “thing” in mainstream press coverage of street crime, and has been for quite some time now. See, e.g., the Houston Chronicle, back in 2005, lamely attempting to justify and deflect when caught in the act.
But rarely does an official Blue State organ so clumsily admit to the underlying facts of the matter: What other inference could one possibly draw from BART’s statement, besides the fact that by golly, crime scene videos do universally show that perpetrators of crime on the transit network are “riders of color,” to use BART’s hilariously au courant PC phrase. If BART officials saw only White folks committing crimes in those tapes, they surely wouldn’t have concluded that releasing such tapes to the public would stir up animosity towards Black people. By saying what they did, they confirmed the very thing they were trying to conceal! Own goal!
And before leftist agitators try to fill your minds with some kind of absurd sophistry defending BART’s decision and tarring with the Racist brush those who’d draw the obvious conclusion, let me introduce you to a useful legal concept. It’s called the “adverse inference” and it applies when there is “spoliation of evidence;” that is, an occasion in a lawsuit where a party has withheld (or has wrongfully destroyed) evidence it should have turned over to the other side during the pre-trial phase of the case. When this happens, the judge can instruct the jury to, more or less, ‘assume the worst’ against the party who’s responsible for the evidence going missing. The jury shouldn’t assume a conclusion that is clearly false, if other evidence has come to light demonstrating such a thing, but for questions that are not otherwise covered by available evidence, and which would have been covered by the missing evidence, the finding is against the evidence-withholding party.
By this rule, and in light of BART’s pronouncement and its refusal to release crime scene surveillance tapes, the only logical steps are:
- Presume, in the first instance, that each crime committed on the BART system was perpetrated by a Black person or a Mexican; but most likely a Black person. We shall call this “BART’s Presumption of Black Criminality.”
- Reverse BART’s Presumption of Black Criminality, in specific cases, only when good evidence emerges showing the accused in such case was not Black or Mexican. This would happen if the BART administrators release the relevant tapes (which will obviously take place only if the perpetrator is White or Asian), or if an arrest is made in such case (for now, the police have not taken to suppressing traditionally open criminal justice records).
To admit to the public that some unpleasant fact is true, and then to tell the public that they’d better stop believing that true fact, and that official evidence of its truth will be suppressed for the good of the people… well, that’s verging on Soviet levels of lunacy. Well done, San Francisco!
Bonus: Here is a random photo taken from among the results of a web search of “BART train crime suspect.” Note that in every photo where suspects are visible, the suspect is Black. (Well, there is one White criminal suspect in the dozens of photos I saw, but that was a man accused of committing a murder elsewhere, and then fleeing aboard a BART train — not of someone who committed a crime on BART property.)