Is Police Brutality a Racial Issue simply because the Media says so?

For the first time in my lifetime, there is finally a topic that has garnered ubiquitous agreement; George Floyd was murdered. Absolutely nobody is challenging this assertion, and the cop who killed him along with his uniformed accomplices are almost certainly going to spend a long time in jail.

George Floyd’s murder was the spark that lit a powder keg of frustration, pain, and outrage which has exploded across dozens of cities worldwide. His death has been interpreted as proof of the long-held, media endorsed belief that Cops are hunting and killing Black people, as if it was a sport.

Canadian news outlets parrot their American counterparts by repeatedly referring to the killing of Mr. Floyd as, “the RACIST murder of George Floyd”. With relentless repetition, the “racist” murder narrative has easily convinced most people that the cop, Derek Chauvin killed Mr. Floyd, at least in part because of his skin colour. Although no evidence has been presented to suggest that Chauvin had any history of racist comments, or associations with racist organizations, the conclusion by the media has been nearly unanimous.

In criminal law, for a crime to exist, there must be two main elements: Actus Reus, and Mens Reus. Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime, or the “act”, and Mens Reus is the mental element of the crime, or the “intention”. The act is much easier to prove than the intention, but the intention doesn’t have to be proven. Intention can instead be assumed based on circumstances and past history. Now that you have a lesson in Criminal Law 101, you may see a problem with the media narrative of George Floyds’ death being concluded as “racist”.

Although it’s entirely possible that Derek Chauvin was in fact a murderous white supremacist, at this point we don’t have any actual evidence that would help us understand either his intentions, or his personal beliefs. All we know for sure is that Officer Chauvin’s arrest and control procedures were entirely wrong, and were certainly a major factor in the death of Mr. Floyd. Having a knee on a person’s neck for more than a few seconds is not an acceptable practice in any circumstance.

But about those “protests”….

The public is absolutely justified in staging massive protests over the police brutality which caused a man to die unnecessarily. Police must be held accountable for their actions, and change must happen to prevent similar instances in the future. The issue though, isn’t about the protests, it’s about the underlying assumptions being made which are fueling the protests.

First, FBI statistics are not supportive of the assumption that black people die in custody more than white people. Though, there are other stats from other sources which strongly support this assumption, it’s difficult to know which stats to believe. Even if the stats did show, without a doubt that black people die in custody more than white people, the only factor mentioned to explain this is “racism”.

Has anyone asked the obvious question of, …why else could this be happening? What other factors may be at play?

Did you know there is another segment of society who are just as likely to die in custody as black people? Military Veterans. Since this segment can not be identified by race, religion, or heritage, what possible explanation could there be for Veterans to be dying in custody at nearly twice the rate of non-veterans? It seems like a valid question to ask, and even an important question to ask in order for us to be able to better understand why some people die in custody more than others. It seems there must be more to it than racism, but that’s not a question that anyone seems to be interested in asking.

Without the media supported presumption that George Floyd’s murder was motivated by racism, the protests would not likely be morphing into full out criminal riots. When the looting starts, the valid protests end. Adorning your living room with an ill-gotten 75” flatscreen does not honour the life of George Floyd, nor does it provide an argument for defunding the police.

By fueling the violence both the media and many politicians have been partly responsible for the deaths of numerous police officers and civilians of all races. Anger over one death has caused the deaths of many others, and that is not an outcome that can be justified.

In 2016, Tony Timpa died in Police custody in nearly the exact same way as George Floyd. The main difference is that Mr. Timpa wasn’t arrested for committing a crime, instead Mr. Timpa called 911 for help because he was scared, and having a psychotic episode. Tony Timpa asked the police for help, and within 15 minutes of the police arriving, Tony was dead. Timpa was cuffed, and placed on his face with an officer kneeling on his back for several minutes. Like Mr. Floyd, Mr. Timpa begged for help, said he couldn’t breath, and told the officer that they were killing him. The Cops laughed and joked once Timpa lost consciousness, and like Floyd, they did not attempt to resuscitate him.

Tony Timpa happened to be white. The National media showed very little interest in the story, and the arresting officers were not fired, and did not do jail time even though the autopsy concluded the death as a Homicide. The three officers were charged, but the charges were all dropped, and they got off scot-free. If the George Floyd protests are about Police Brutality, then where are the protests for Tony Timpa? Why is his name not mentioned as a precursor to the current situation? It seems that if the accusation of racism can’t be used, then the story will not be run.

The media likes it when you’re angry, and they love it when you’re scared. The more frightened you are, the more you look to the media for answers. The more angry you are, the more likely you are to participate in newsworthy protests. Either way, the media wins at your expense.

You should be outraged at the death of George Floyd, but if you’re not equally outraged about Tony Timpa, then you’re not really interested in Police reform.

Most Police officers are dedicated public servants who are doing an impossible job. I’m not anti-cop in any way. I am however anti-corruption no matter where I find it. Whether it’s in the media, with the Police, within the Government, corruption and abuse of power must be addressed, and fixed. In the absence of good questions, and clear thought, corruption will always flourish.

Mark Meincke
Author, Writer, Podcast Host

Buy the Home Seller’s Bible by clicking HERE

Buy “Why not Me?” HERE

Meincke Show Podcast

Operation Tango Romeo

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Black Lives Matter: What would Martin Luther King Jr Say?

Up Next

Black Lives Matter: What would Martin Luther King Jr Say?

Don't Miss

Hockey, basketball and volleyball gone from the U of A’s fall and winter to-do lists

Mark Meincke

Father, Professional Development Trainer, Author

Follow Author

Why We Remember

Alberta / 5 years ago

Being a Cop has Always Been a Thankless Job

Calgary / 5 years ago

Why The News Is Fake, And Liberals Rely On Racism

Alberta

Calgary’s new city council votes to ban foreign flags at government buildings

Published on December 23, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Western Canada’s largest city has put in place what amounts to a ban on politically charged flags from flying at city-owned buildings.

“Calgary’s Flag Policy means any country recognized by Canada may have their flag flown at City Hall on their national day,” said Calgary’s new mayor Jeromy Farkas on X last month.

“But national flag-raisings are now creating division. Next week, we’ll move to end national flag-raisings at City Hall to keep this a safe, welcoming space for all.”

The motion to ban foreign flags from flying at government buildings was introduced on December 15 by Calgary councilor Dan McLean and passed by a vote of 8 to 7. He had said the previous policy to allow non-Canadian flags to fly, under former woke mayor Jyoti Gondek, was “source of division within our community.”

“In recent months, this practice has been in use in ways that I’ve seen have inflamed tensions, including instances where flag raisings have been associated with anti-Semitic behavior and messaging,” McLean said during a recent council meeting.

The ban on flag raising came after the Palestinian flag was allowed to be raised at City Hall for the first time.

Farkas, shortly after being elected mayor in the fall of 2025, had promised that he wanted a new flag policy introduced in the city.

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Despite Farkas putting forth the motion, as reported by LifeSiteNews he is very much in the pro-LGBT camp. However, he has promised to focus only on non-ideological issues during his term.

“When City Hall becomes a venue for geopolitical expressions, it places the city in the middle of conflicts that are well beyond our municipal mandates,” he said.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, other jurisdictions in Canada are considering banning non-Canadian flags from flying over public buildings.

Recently a political party in British Columbia, OneBC, introduced legislation to ban non-domestic government flags at public buildings in British Columbia.

Across Canada there has also been an ongoing issue with so-called “Pride” flags being raised at schools and city buildings.

Alberta

Calgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families

Published on November 17, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Calgary’s new mayor, Jeromy Farkas, has promised to scrap “blanket rezoning”—a policy enacted by the city in 2024 that allows homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods without first seeking the blessing of city hall. In other words, amid an affordability crunch, Mayor Farkas plans to eliminate a policy that made homebuilding easier and cheaper—which risks reducing housing choices and increasing housing costs for Calgarian families.

Blanket rezoning was always contentious. Debate over the policy back in spring 2024 sparked the longest public hearing in Calgary’s history, with many Calgarians airing concerns about potential impacts on local infrastructure, parking availability and park space—all important issues.

Farkas argues that blanket rezoning amounts to “ignoring the community” and that Calgarians should not be forced to choose between a “City Hall that either stops building, or stops listening.” But in reality, it’s virtually impossible to promise more community input on housing decisions and build more homes faster.

If Farkas is serious about giving residents a “real say” in shaping their neighbourhood’s future, that means empowering them to alter—or even block—housing proposals that would otherwise be allowed under blanket rezoning. Greater public consultation tends to give an outsized voice to development opponents including individuals and groups that oppose higher density and social housing projects.

Alternatively, if the mayor and council reform the process to invite more public feedback, but still ultimately approve most higher-density projects (as was the case before blanket rezoning), the consultation process would be largely symbolic.

Either way, homebuilders would face longer costlier approval processes—and pass those costs on to Calgarian renters and homebuyers.

It’s not only the number of homes that matters, but also where they’re allowed to be built. Under blanket rezoning, builders can respond directly to the preferences of Calgarians. When buyers want duplexes in established neighbourhoods or renters want townhomes closer to work, homebuilders can respond without having to ask city hall for permission.

According to Mayor Farkas, higher-density housing should instead be concentrated near transit, schools and job centres, with the aim of “reducing pressure on established neighbourhoods.” At first glance, that may sound like a sensible compromise. But it rests on the flawed assumption that politicians and planners should decide where Calgarians are allowed to live, rather than letting Calgarians make those choices for themselves. With blanket rezoning, new homes are being built in areas in response to buyer and renter demand, rather than the dictates of city hall. The mayor also seems to suggest that city hall should thwart some redevelopment in established neighbourhoods, limiting housing options in places many Calgarians want to live.

The stakes are high. Calgary is not immune to Canada’s housing crisis, though it has so far weathered it better than most other major cities. That success partly reflects municipal policies—including blanket rezoning—that make homebuilding relatively quick and inexpensive.

A motion to repeal blanket rezoning is expected to be presented to Calgary’s municipal executive committee on Nov. 17. If it passes, which is likely, the policy will be put to a vote during a council meeting on Dec. 15. As the new mayor and council weigh changes to zoning rules, they should recognize the trade-offs. Empowering “the community” may sound appealing, but it may limit the housing choices available to families in those communities. Any reforms should preserve the best elements of blanket rezoning—its consistency, predictability and responsiveness to the housing preferences of Calgarians—and avoid erecting zoning barriers that have exacerbated the housing crisis in other cities.