So, I’m a bit confused by this headline and sub-heading in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle:
Arrest of disabled man fans racial tensions in Sealy
Allegations of excessive force stir anger and fuel a call for reform
What I’m confused about is why the Chronicle felt the need to lead with “disabled” man. It’s misleading, as it leads the reader to think that the tensions in Sealy over this arrest are because the man is disabled.
When the truth is, all of the tension over the arrest of Albert Lane Sr. is because of his race.
Lane took a friend, Gerald Scranton, to the store at approximately 8:20 p.m. to pick up wages Scranton claimed Clarence Einkauf owed him. Rose Einkauf said she refused to pay Scranton, the son of black Councilman Joe Scranton, and called the police after Scranton took two beers from a case without paying for them.
Ok, so right off the bat, we have one guy (Scranton) obviously breaking the law here. Seems the property owners are well within their rights to ask and/or force this person to leave their property. And, as Mr. Lane was the driver, it’s reasonable that they would ask him to leave their property, too.
So, the owners called the police. To assist in rightfully removing these men from their property. Did Lane and Scranton comply with the officers (which is what good citizens do)? No.
Lane was arrested because he appeared drunk and refused to consent to a sobriety test, he said. Murray, who personally investigated the case, said it is standard procedure to request a sobriety test when there is an indication of public drunkenness.
‘They (police officers) could tell Mr. Lane was drunk from the strong smell of alcohol on his breath,” Murray said. “He went down on his knees, he wouldn’t comply with the police officers’ orders, and he threw up three times when he was in police custody.”
Could it be that Mr. Lane was arrested for being a public drunk and disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer? That’s exactly what it sounds like to me.
But instead of taking personal responsibility for his actions, Mr. Lane decided to play the race card, insisting that he was a victim of racism and racial profiling.
Local blacks, led by Herschel Smith, thought they should protest the store—not because they were accused of being racists (remember, those charges were only levied against the Sealy Police Department)—but because they make money from blacks. No—seriously:
“This should be a wake-up call for blacks in this community,” said Herschel Smith, who heads the group. “Whites have been making money off blacks in this town for years, while blacks are being left out and robbed of the opportunity of being served by blacks.”
So, Mr. Smith doesn’t think that non-blacks are entitled to own businesses that serve blacks, right? Has anybody pointed out the hypocrisy to Mr. Smith in alleging that he’s the victim of racism—rather than an instigator and perpetuator of racism?
The Houston Chronicle uses Lane’s disability as an excuse. Mr. Lane and Herschel Smith use racism as an excuse. But that’s all they are—excuses. Mr. Lane was drunk in public and refused to comply with officers. There’s no excuse for that.
If you lived in the town and knew the 2 people involved, you would know that in the past years there have been many incidents between blacks and Clarence and Rose Einkauf. They refuse to touch the hands of blacks when giving them change. Clarence is fond of the word “boy” no matter the age. He beat an elderly black woman for putting trash in his dumpster. This is just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Everyone wants someone to blame for whatever happens, but those 2 have brought it on themselves for a long time.
Left by CE on April 13th, 2005 at 6:24 am