YouTube Influencers & Law Enforcement Suffering From The Same Systemic Problem: Enabling
Written By: Anton Sawyer
Warning: This article contains graphic depictions of a murder that occurred with a captive suspect. If you are offended by such things, then let me recommend checking out the YouTube Influencer portion only.
It seems kind of counterintuitive that I am writing an article with a negative position involving law enforcement. Given that one of my last articles published was talking about the amazing and positive direction being taken by the Greeley, Colorado Police Department when it comes to keeping their fellow officers accountable for their wrongdoings (A Police Department Doing The Right Thing? It’s happening In Greeley, Colorado!), the piece today seems like a huge swerve. When re-reading the previous article, the one part that kept eating at me was how the various departments and their press releases only allowed the bare-bones information required of them when it came to publicly disclosing any officer investigations. The more I went down the rabbit hole, there was one thing that I noticed being consistent—and not with just law enforcement, but with the Cancel Culture movement as well. Enablers. Those who pick and choose what kind of information is released to the public at large in an attempt to manipulate the citizens—and it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not.
In an attempt to maintain complete transparency, all research and statistical fact-checking for this article, and all articles, can be found at our site's bibliography linked here.
Follow us on Twitter & Instagram
Consider supporting us on Patreon
From YouTube to the Supreme Court of the United States, there has been enough wiggle-room given to the interpretations of what is detrimental to our society—both online and in the real world—to allow some of the worst human beings to continue their atrocities. This article is going to look at how both YouTube and US law enforcement have crafted half-truths to allow those that support them to be blinded as to how truly impactful they are in our world.
I think the best visual that can provide the proper example of what I mean by enabling is by likening it to watching the shows on TLC which feature morbidly obese people and their families. You do not get that way unless someone is there helping you get that way. Many of them are bedridden and haven’t left the house in years, let alone been a member of the workforce. Someone has to pay the rent. Someone has to get the food. Someone has to take care of the day-to-day monotonies of life (i.e. making sure the rent and the electricity bills are paid). Most of the time the enabler feels like they are doing the right thing. That the person they care for is helpless or would be lost without them in some way. The entire relationship is predicated on gamesmanship that can is often composed of a plethora of mental, physical, or emotional elements. In every case though, we do see someone enabling the person who is obese, thereby perpetuating the cycle. Keeping this in mind, it’s this same kind of enabling that has allowed both police officers, and YouTube, to have plausible deniability for their contributions to these hideous acts. And yeah, complacency with the actions are going to be taken into account and will be counted as enabling as well.
YouTube is probably the single greatest enabler to the Cancel Culture movement. We could look at those who have ended their careers by their own hands and doings. We could look at people skirting the lines of reality and online persona, and how they have been able to play the youth of America for years. These are all worthy topics, but at the Truther we want to get to the source, and in most cases it’s YouTube. The great thing about Cancel Culture is that you can make it up as you go along. Someone famous during the Reagan administration that did extremely racist material can easily be canceled in modern times (even if their transgressions were addressed decades prior).
If you were someone who started your career by stereotyping people and making shock humor, if the Social Justice Warriors find out, you could be toast (even if these "evil doings" were what made you famous in the first place). This is where finding the perfect target can be difficult. YouTube also makes things up as they go. A good example is when you hear about some influencer who made a video over a decade ago that contained some pretty racy stuff, but you can't find it ... if YouTube or the algorithm doesn't want you to. They pick and choose from their ivory tower what is in YOUR best interest. It could be by de-monetizing a video, even if the video has done nothing to warrant such a punishment. Then you see pro-anorexic royalty like Eugenia Cooney release fetish videos of her getting monetary tips for fulfilling the fantasies of those who enjoy watching women suffer (How Eugenia Cooney Is Normalizing Predatory & Grooming Behaviors), and YouTube doesn’t think twice about letting it slide. This perfectly sets up the flexible mindset of the SJW who encourage Cancel Culture behavior. You can pick and choose. If you try to cancel one target, and it doesn’t work, then try a different hashtag and move on to the next one. Eventually, the SJW will stumble upon someone who says or does something they find offensive and it catches fire. The other element to Cancel Culture that I don’t understand is that if the media influencer admits they are a total human puke, they get a pass. Trisha Paytas is the perfect example of this. There are about a thousand reasons they should have been canceled a long time ago, but hasn’t been (Trisha Paytas-In 1543 It Was Discovered the World Orbits The Sun, Not You; With Peace and Love). There have been videos made by Trisha egging on the SJWs to come after them because they can’t be canceled. Trisha has enough self-awareness to know they're a total mess of a person and admits it. So is that the trick? You just admit how crap you are and you get a pass? This is where those with flexible morality find solace; the YouTube algorithm. Those who control the dissemination of information also controls their morality; it’s a fact that’s been proven through the centuries.
The Pulitzer Prize winning Salt Lake Tribune, in conjunction with PBS Frontline, recently re-opened an inquiry into a case that has been shelved for over two years. On August 23rd, 2019, a 31-year old man named Michael Chad Breinholt was shot INSIDE a police department while he was being restrained by handcuffs and two policemen in a West Valley City Police Department. He told the police officer he had a gun in his shoe. When the police went to grab it, a scuffle ensued. The video is available online if you want to watch it, however, I'll give a quick summary. Sergeant Tyler Longman can be seen walking in, drawing his weapon, putting it to the neck of Breinholt, and shooting. What’s truly chilling is hearing Sgt. Longman say “You’re about to die, my friend,” and then waiting a moment before firing his weapon. It gets worse.
The reason this investigative report happened was that there has been no movement on the case of Sgt. Longman. There has been no definitive answer to the question of whether Longman will face charges for the murder of someone in his custody, or not. Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill will make the decision, but he has not indicated if or when this may occur. West Valley City police declined to answer questions about the shooting because it is still pending with the district attorney’s office. The only organization to make a judgment on the situation specifically is West Valley City’s incident review committee. They determined Longman didn’t violate policy, and he’s back on duty after being on administrative leave, which is standard protocol after a police shooting. His actions have also been defended by Utah’s Fraternal Order of Police. We could look at this case and say that perhaps this officer has a spotless record and therefore is doing their best to uncover the truth. Sadly, this is now the third person that Sgt. Tyler Longman has killed on duty.
As much as I would love to spend all day looking at the legalities of the cases already adjudicated, and wax poetic about the injustices of what happened, that’s a different topic for a different day. It’s pretty easy to see how this kind of thing could happen when you see the enabling done by the state in general. In the same report done by the Salt Lake Tribune and PBS Frontline, they discovered that 38 Utah officers have shot in more than one encounter since 2004. 33 have pulled the trigger twice, three have fired three times, and two officers have fired four times. That number may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but in context it’s terrifying. In Utah, since 2004, there have been 318 shootings and 75 of those—nearly 25%—involved an officer who had shot at someone before, or would do so later. The database also shows that 65% of shootings involved an officer who was under some kind of attack or responding to one. This means that more than one-third of all shootings in Utah were in a situation where the officer wasn’t under attack, or even responding to that kind of a situation.
There are a thousand examples I could have given or the law enforcement section. I picked that one because of just how disgustingly brazen the murder is, the fact the officer is back on the job, along with the non-response from the District Attorney. It’s the same with the YouTube Influencer section as well. There are thousands of influencers, actors, actresses—really anyone in the limelight—that could be named too. I know there are a ton of layers to both of these issues, and this is just one of them. But it does make me think one thing—I know the phrase is “don’t shit where you eat,” but what if where you eat is covered in it?
Follow us on Twitter
Consider supporting us on Patreon