UPDATED: Is This One Way?

Fire, meet gasoline:

Obama urges Americans to ‘confront historical inequities,’ after fatal Daunte Wright police shooting | Just The News https://t.co/5FNhJCUgMT

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) April 13, 2021

It's not totally clear to me how "historical inequities" enter into a police officer confusing their taser gun with their service handgun. Nevertheless, we now learn that the mayor of Brooklyn Center has found one way to immediately address "historical inequities"--or something like that:

Black City Manager Fired For Saying Officer Who Shot Daunte Wright Deserves ‘Due Process’

Effective immediately our city manager has been relieved of his duties, and the deputy city manager will be assuming his duties moving forward. I will continue to work my hardest to ensure good leadership at all levels of our city government.

— Mayor Mike Elliott (@mayor_elliott) April 12, 2021

Now, here's a thought. Is there a difference between an "historical" and an "historic" inequity--or can one incident be both? If the two are different, should they be treated differently--and if so why? Here's what I'm getting at.

Rasmussen polling is reporting:

By a margin of 51% – 44%, voters said it is “likely” that cheating affected the 2020 election outcome. That includes 74% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats and 51% of independent voters. (Follow the link for the rest of the story.)

Based on that polling, is it fair to say that Election 2020 was at least presumptively an "historical inequity" that we need to confront, or was it an "historic inequity" that we need to confront--or maybe both? And, by the way, is Obama trying to distract our attention from something?

Also, what's the news about Ashli Babbit? Is it true that she contributed to her own demise by getting involved in an attempted aggravated armed robbery--or am I confusing her situation with someone else's problems? Should her death come under the historical/historic inequity umbrella of Election 2020? Is anyone confronting any of the above?

UPDATE: Fox News is reporting (via Red State):

Boganey stood, despite the pressure from the mayor and despite the pressure from the activists, because it was the right thing to do. He lost his job over standing up for that right, for due process.

“I lost my job, but I still have my integrity,” former City Manager Curt Boganey told Fox News in a statement, Tucker Carlson revealed on his Tuesday night show. They invited him to be on air but he turned it down because he was “hesitant about making any media appearances,” the Daily Caller said. That makes me think all the more of him.

If we’re not standing for that concept, what are we about anymore as a country?

Integrity? Wow--what world is this guy living in? Hey, hat's off to him. And take note of this: He doesn't say anything about confronting "historical inequities". For that matter, Obama didn't say anything about "integrity." Weird. Or maybe not.

Jonathan Turley weighs in. His entire article is worth reading (linked in tweet):

Many leaders have again decided that due process is a liability. After Curt Boganey called for due process for the officer, he was fired. Due process is not a dirty word or a dog whistle... https://t.co/bhOXQRITli

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 13, 2021

... 

When Brooklyn Center City Manager Curt Boganey said a full investigation would be conducted and due process afforded to any accused officers, he was fired. Soon after the shooting, and before any underlying facts were established, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz denounced “another life of a Black man taken by law enforcement” and made a connection to the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin, occurring a few miles away.

Due process is not a dirty word or a dog whistle. Boganey was trying to do what Walz was unwilling to do and respect the rule of law. ...

It is possible that the shooting was accidental. In the video, the officer is heard yelling “taser, taser, taser” before she swears and says “I just shot him.” We have seen many cases of officers confusing tasers with service weapons in struggles. There have been design and training changes to address these tragedies. The shape and color of tasers were changed to reduce the “weapon confusion” incidents. Although some departments have experimented with different tasers, most still believe tasers shaped like guns offer the best tactical use. They have tried training, utility belt placement, and other means to avoid weapon confusion.

But in dangerous adrenaline driven encounters, split second mistakes still occur. One of the most infamous cases of weapon confusion occurred in 2009. Oscar Grant was on the ground in a prone position when Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes Mehserle told colleagues he was going to taser him. Mehserle then shot Grant in the back with his service weapon, and he was later found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

...

These weapon confusion cases are all tragic and involve all races and genders. In many cases, the use of the tasers would have been deemed reasonable. The same may be true in the incident with Wright, ...

...

Boganey shows that defending due process is now a precarious choice in these times, one few politicians are willing to make. The contradictions he sought to avoid are the rallying cries of those in power. Unfortunately, just as due process once defined us before, the disregard of due process now may define us in these tragedies.  ...