Following the anti-cop protests and subsequent execution of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, the New York Times has taken a decidedly pro-anarchy and violence stance by both supporting cop-hating NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and shunning the men and women in blue. The nation’s most liberal newspaper took this bias to sickening new levels yesterday by publishing a gushing bio of cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley that excuses his heinous crime as an accident.
This mostly fluff, entirely offensive, piece wants you to have sympathy for a POS that gunned down two innocent police officers, robbing their families of husbands and fathers. It starts out by portraying Brinsley as a lovable loser:
His entire life, Ismaaiyl Brinsley tried on identities as if they were new clothes. He was a bad boy with a gun, a fashionable man in Gucci and Cartier, a T-shirt maker, a film director, a screenwriter, a devout Muslim, a rap producer.
In reality, Mr. Brinsley’s short life was a series of disappointments.
He was the difficult teenager who was passed around from home to home, the adult who could make nothing work, not a T-shirt company, not even an attempt on his own life at a former girlfriend’s house.
Everyone seemed to betray him. The friends who pistol-whipped and robbed him in May. The girlfriend who dumped him around Thanksgiving.
Oh no, he had a tough life. Gosh, he was so hapless he couldn’t even kill himself (at least not at first). No wonder he killed two cops in cold blood because that’s what everyone whose life doesn’t turn out the way they though it would handles things.
This puke-inducing sympathy-fishing rolls on for what seems like endless paragraphs and then actually manages to force up even more bile. Here’s how the NYT describes Brinsley’s execution of Officers Liu and Ramos:
But the truth of Mr. Brinsley’s short life and violent end is probably less political and more accidental than initially portrayed, friends and his mother said. He was no ardent anti-police activist, as some of his friends were. He was nursing no grudge against the police in Brooklyn. He was no stone-cold criminal; his 20 arrests were mostly for minor crimes, even though they prevented him again and again from getting a job.
Huh? This guy that didn’t hate the police posted anti-police messages on social media, threatened to kill police, and then drove to NYC and actually did kill two police officers, and this was all somehow just a big accident? WTF?
That’s a pretty offensive take on the brutal assassination of a pair of unsuspecting cops, but the NYT is just warming up with the excuse making:
Ultimately, that is perhaps the most coherent explanation: another wrong turn after a lifetime of them, one that led down a cul-de-sac where, in the end, Mr. Brinsley saw no way out. He decided to take two officers with him almost as an afterthought, a final attempt to gain the kind of notoriety that he had always craved.
First, it was accidental, now the killing of two cops becomes just an afterthought like it was no big deal. The author seems to say that it was okay because Brinsley was depressed and sad people can’t be held responsible for their actions. Like I said: sickening.
This is another pathetic attempt by the liberal media to turn low-life scumbags into heroes. Brinsley was not a victim of circumstance or of an uncaring society; he was a cop-killing sh*tstain pure and simple. Shame on the NYT for trying to portray this asshole as some one deserving of sympathy or pity.