“What about disarming the (Ferguson) police?”—Ed Schultz

On occasion I’m guilty of using the term media too broadly. I don’t like when several in that profession paint a broad stroke about 800,000 cops, so I should be more aware of doing the same.

So let’s get specific: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz.

On his show Wednesday night, while discussing the Ferguson DOJ report and the “peaceful protests” Schultz said the following: “I’ll give you this one: What about disarming the police? What about just having them carry nightsticks and the authority to arrest?”

A few hours later, two police officers working the Ferguson protest were shot. One in the face with the bullet lodging near his ear and the other hit in the shoulder and that round exiting his back.

Well, Ed must have felt kind of silly suggesting that police officers need no firearms since the “peaceful protest” turned deadly. So the next night he went on his show and … well, he sort of blamed the police.

Talking to a reporter on the scene, Schultz asked: “This may be an off-the-wall question, but do the police need to be there?” After referencing the shooting and ignoring his suggestion from the previous night he doubled-down with: “If they’re a target, do the police need to be there while these peaceful protests are taking place.”

Huh?

I mean—HUH?!

I know Ed isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but “peaceful”?

Let’s recap. Two cops ambushed, shot from about 100 yards away. The shots were fired in the dark near a crowd with a hundred citizens in the line of fire. There was an attempt to murder a group of honorable, brave and righteous police officers, with families, just doing their jobs (most of whom, by the way, were not from Ferguson PD). Screaming, chaos, fear, terror, injuries, a stampede of bodies—this was the result. In the aftermath, people shouted insults at the police who were bravely holding their ground in order to protect their fallen brothers as well as the protesters. All of that in full view of the camera, and Ed is still describing the protest as “peaceful?”

None of this reality seems to influence Ed, who is constantly accusing others of being biased, racist, prejudiced, stupid, heartless and so forth.

When I was growing up it seemed to me that people featured on TV news shows were educated, impartial and intelligent. Apparently none of those traits are requirements anymore to get a platform on national television. Luckily Ed’s ratings couldn’t really get much lower so his influence is limited to those who lack the aptitude necessary to figure out how the remote control works.

Here’s my idea: If we’re taking something away, can we start with Ed Schultz’ microphone?