The Florida Homicide: A Racist View (updated 4/6/12, updated again 4/12/12, and again on 6/4/12)

first published early april 2012:

The Hispanic-on-black homicide in Florida is a sad event that’s like a breath of fresh air to Obama’s race baiters. Extortionist-in-Chief Reverend Jackson was down there this weekend trying to whip up a crowd and then to make it boil over. Unfortunately for him and for the President, it’s not the good old days of the civil rights struggle anymore. America has in fact cleaned up its formally racist act. It’s one of the least racist countries in the world, I think. It’s difficult even for the most gullible white liberals to believe that this black president is just a fluke. It’s no easy to imagine that the election itself was simply an isolated re-affirmation of affirmative action. It hurts for me to admit it given his performance in office but he was actually elected. In fact, it’s not hard to argue that African-Americans today wield more influence than their 12% (or 13%, or 15%) of the population, would explain.

Anyway, I don’t know why one man in his thirties shot a younger man to death. I don’t know any more than I did a week ago, or a month ago. If anyone does know more, then he/she/they, should share the information and identify its source clearly. The shooter says “self-defense,” as you would expect. That does not mean he is not a trigger-happy racist vigilante. The young victim was a good boy, says his mother. Mothers usually say that, especially when they have lost their son to unexpected violence. It does not mean he was not a little beast as, in fact, many young black men appear to be. (See below.) And no, my opinion isn’t much influenced by the fact that the victim had school trouble because of marijuana. (My white friends’ children don’t but that’s mostly because, where I live, the school authorities don’t care much to check.) Even the fact that he was caught with a screwdriver in his backpack does not make much of an impression on me. There may well have been an innocent explanation such as a sticking locker door, or some sort of over-dramatic, show-off defense against bullying such as young men often employ. Sure the screwdriver may have been a violation of school policy; it did not merit capital punishment, I am sure.

I am pointing out the obvious, of course. We have a justice system with fairly good and tried procedures. There are few places in the US anymore where a DA gets a good reputation by not prosecuting murderers. The fact that it used to happen, fifty years ago, does not make it so today. Plus, even if he enjoyed racist community approval, the DA could not hope to escape the censure, the opprobrium of others outside the same community. I don’t know the relevant DA but I bet he had to graduate from law school, had to pass the bar exam (like President Obama). It’s not likely he is so stupid he does not know about the power of the Internet.

The mostly black crowds that gathered last Sunday to demand the shooter’s arrest remind me of the lynch mobs of old, of course. Or, do you think that African-Americans to not share with others the base and basic human desire to lynch? Do you? Really? Oh, you don’t like the stand-your- ground law that exists in Florida; you think it facilitates murder, pure and simple? Well, it may be a bad law. Laws are forever changing, as they should because they often prove to have unintended consequences. Change the law, then. In the meantime, the law is the law and don’t put any pressure on the authorities to act outside the law. Refusing to recognize the legitimacy of laws that proceed from proper democratic processes is called _________. (Fill in the blank.) Attempting to bully properly constituted authorities into acting outside the law is called__________. Trying to substitute mob rule for due process is called ____________. (Hint: The same answer goes into the three blanks.)

As we wait for a proper judicial process to take its course, with the possibility that the shooter will spend long miserable years in jail, remarkable things have already happened in connection with this unhappy event. Here are the two most remarkable:

First the victim’s mother acquired legal protection for phrases that can be used in connection with her son’s death. When in the history of humanity did a mother grieving for her son ever think of acquiring trademarks about the painful event? When did such a mother ever act on this strangely hard-hearted, inhumane, craven wish?

There is something very wrong in this picture. Someone powerful, someone self-assured, someone who is not grieving is holding the mother’s hand when she signs the applications for trademarks. And who could that be and why?

Second. Why would the president pronounce publicly and aloud on an event which is clearly not within the federal jurisdiction, even if it is a crime at all? Why would he? We were told he was a constitutional scholar. Does he not know that in nearly all cases, murder is squarely a state crime? (Don’t bother me with civil rights violations. That’s another issue and that’s not what he sounded off on.) The answer to my question is not as obvious as it seems: President Obama may in fact not have been clear in his mind on this constitutional fact. I keep telling you he is not evil but confused and out of his depth. How about his job teaching constitutional law in a reputed law school, you ask?

Well, I hate to pull rank on you, reader but, I am a retired academic and I assure you I have seen the likes of it and worse. Of course, I can’t prove my case with respect to Prof. Obama specifically because his grades, even his undergraduate grades, are still under lock and key.(Grade=note, in French.)

And then, there is racism. African-Americans are about 12% of the US population says Wikepedia. Let’s assume that’s a gross under-account. Let’s assume they are in fact a full 20% of the US population. Still, they account for about half of all homicide victims nation-wide from one year to the next. Someone is killing African-Americans and killing them out of proportion to their numbers in the population, two and half times or more, just about. It appears that the killers of African-Americans are mostly not Hispanics (not even “white “ Hispanics), and not even whites.

About 94% of African-American homicide victims appear to be killed by African-Americans. Now, let’s suppose that here again, there is a false count, an over-count, this time, in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Let’s suppose only 84% of African- American homicide victims are killed by other African-Americans. This mans that the 80% of the population who are not African-Americans, have to crowd into a narrow space to be able to kill the 16% of black homicide victims not killed by other African-Americans.That is, all white killers of blacks, and all Asian killers of blacks, and all Pacific islanders, and all Inuit killers of black and, of course, all Hispanics have to crowd into the same little space for a chance to murder black person.

Any way you look at it, this is intolerable. It should be intolerable to African-American leaders, such as Jessie Jackson (and to the NAACP, by the way) so, they have adopted a convention:

There were 7,300 African-American victims of homicide in 2007, for example (according to a Violence Policy Center study). Only the black victims of non-black killers are actually dead however. The thousands of black victims of black killers are just pretending to be dead. If you say otherwise, you must be a racist.

PS  No, I am not suggesting that there was a conspiracy to murder the young man in order to stir up racial trouble favorable to the troubled Obama re-election prospects. It seems to me however that someone quickly grasped the political advantage of that sad event for one side, and for one side only.

Update 4/6/12.   In today’s Wall Street Journal, Shelby Steele says the same things I said above but much better. (“The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin.”) Among other statements:

On the transformation of the American racial scene since the civil rights movement: “There are no longer any respectable  advocates of racial segregation.”

And: “…the increasingly redundant civil rights establishment…” “want(s) to make a movement out of an anomaly.” (the killing of a young black man by someone who is not himself a young black man.)

And further: “Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.”

Mr Steele is a conservative historian and philosopher. He is an African-American.

And I had forgotten to mention something foreign readers may no be aware of: The  talented black movie director Spike Lee offered a ransom for doing something unspecified to the shooter of the young black man. He offered a large amount of money.

4/12/12    The Hispanic shooter tuned himself in yesterday. He was taken into custody on instructions of a special prosecutor. The original, locally elected prosecutor (“District Attorney”) had declined to take him into custody. He never changed his mind. Instead, he recused himself. No one knows why except the people involved. The Governor of Florida appointed another prosecutor, a “special prosecutor” to deal with the matter of the dead young black man.

The appointed special prosecutor decide on her own that she would not submit the matter to a grand jury, as is the normal practice, to decide if the shooter should be indicted and for what. In most American jurisdictions, grand juries, representative of the local citizenry, decide if the evidence present warrants, justifies charging someone.

The  special prosecutor knew she would have little chance of influencing the local grand jury that she had not herself convened. In the meantime, and since the fatal shooting there had been numerous loud demonstrations by black organizations demanding that the shooter be arrested. It’s an election year.

Of course, there is  no connection between the demonstrations and the special prosecutor’s decision to take the extraordinary decision of side-stepping the normal procedure, the grand jury. Or is there?

An important media organ was caught red-handed for having doctored, fraudulently modified a voice recording to make it appear that the shooter was racially motivated.

As this point, today, I still have no idea whether the shooter acted from self-defense as he alleges, or whether he is a deadly racist, or  if there is some other explanation. I am now glad that he is in jail because he is probably safer there than on the outside where a well-known media personality offered a bounty for him and did it with impunity.

The handling of this sad event stinks worse every day.

Update6/4/12 : The shooter was charged with some sort of homicide in by the state of Florida( not first degree  murder). Then, as is the practice, he was set free under bail. Again, that was not a favor done to him; it’s the everyday practice.

On June 3rd, the shooter’s bail was revoke and he reported to jail. The reason, is that the judge believes that he, the shooter, lied about how much money he had when the judge decided what his bail would be. (Tech note: The judge has wide discretion in setting the amount of bail. However, there are well understood general principles. One is that the amount of the bail must be large enough in relation to the accused riches to deter him from fleeing.)

The shooter understated how much money he had, it appears.  Appearing as a liar in a trial where it’s his word against the victim’s word and the victim is dead is a bad idea. He might end up going to jail for a long time because he wanted to save a few thousand dollars. Sad!


About Jacques Delacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Florida Homicide: A Racist View (updated 4/6/12, updated again 4/12/12, and again on 6/4/12)

  1. Bruce says:

    The race fetishists have once again jumped the gun. With a name like George Zimmerman who would have thought he would turn out to be Hispanic? Obama jumped on the race baiter bandwagon in the most personal way he could think of when he said “If I had a son, he would look like Travon”. Which Travon? The skinny 13 year old in the Hollister shirt or the 6″2 football player Facebook gangsta wannabe he was that day. I think if Obama had a 17 year old son he would look like his Georgetown prep school counterparts waiting for the Harvard early admission letter to be handed to him. Obama is getting desperate and needs to energize his base, so he could not let this crisis go to waste. Our system of justice will sort out what happened, just like it did in the Duke Lacrosse Team case. That Obama has remained silent about the New Black Panther Party’s $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman and trying him in their court is predictable. Those are his peeps. Can you imagine the outrage if a white supremisist group put a bounty on anyone? Eric Holder would be in the case until somebody was locked up for a long time. Instead of providing leadership, our president fans the flames of division and mob rule. He is no different than the two “Reverends” who show up for these events and never apologize when they’re wrong. I wonder if there is any way to blame Bush.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Bruce: I especially like the Georgetown admissions part.

      Is it true that the victim was over 6 ‘? Source?

  2. Terry Amburgey says:

    Jacques I’m embarrassed for you.

    • 90404 says:

      I am new here. I am proud of you z French guy.
      Does zee name Lovell Mixon ring a bell?
      He was a child rapist / cop killer. In zee Oakland they protested, were angry this example of a black man [victim] was killed by po-lice!
      The memorial may be at youtube.
      Far as TN Coates and the Atlantic go, ill pass, no thanks.

      • jacquesdelacroix says:

        90404: The only thing that makes sense in your comment is the Zs. You are a credit to something or other.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    Why don’t blacks protest black-on-black on black crime? False premise; they do. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, here are some others
    It’s amazing what attending to media other than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can reveal.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Terry: You have seen with your own eyes black marches lead by well-known black leaders well covered by the national media protesting the thousands of casual murders of black people by black criminals? I must have been distracted.

      Have you forgotten already what happens when a universally acclaimed, popular, rich, powerful black man like Bill Cosby has the temerity to speak publicly about massive black-on-black crime and about the culture he thinks is conducive to it?

      I am ashamed for you that you resort to such absurd stereotypes as affirming without basis that I get my new only from Fox and from Rush Limbaugh, (And, by the way, one could do worse. There is no Jason Blair in either’s history.) Are you not committing one of the most elementary logical fallacies? (Only people who listen ONLY to Rush Limbaugh can say this, he says it, so, it proves that he listens only to Rush Limbaugh!)

      So, for the record, I listen to Rush Limbaugh frequently. He is seldom wrong about anything factual. He has a crack research team. I also listens to National Public Radio a minimum of two hours a day, frequently three hours. I find many mistakes in it and even more demonstrations of sheer stupidity. (See my essay on “Hunger in America.”)

      And, don’t you know that the general media’s left-bias is so pronounced that one would have to try very hard to avoid being exposed to left-wing viewpoints while living in this country? Why do you think I am so mean? (It’s because I am exasperated, of course by the routine mis-reporting from which there is no escaping!)

      And, since you insist on trying to pull rank, I must let you know that absolutely every day, I take in the news in two languages, many days, it’s in three languages. How ’bout them, apples!

  4. baloocartoons says:

    Very useful and clear summary. I’ve linked it here:

  5. Terry Amburgey says:

    The president has made public comments about the Zimmerman/Martin case. I expect the local mouth-breathers to start ranting any second about
    “…our president fans the flames of division and mob rule”. Since I know that Jacques is loath to go to original sources I’ll post the transcript here. I don’t expect the wingnuts to actually read it but it will be useful to have here as a reference point.

    “The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that’s obviously gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.

    I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

    First of all, I want to make sure that once again I send my thought and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

    The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal — the legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.

    The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant. And they rendered a verdict.

    And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

    But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

    You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.

    And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a — and a history that — that doesn’t go away.

    There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

    There are probably very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.

    There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.

    That happens often.

    And, you know, I — I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.

    And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

    The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

    Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.

    It’s not to make excuses for that fact.

    Although, black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that, some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country. And that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

    And so, the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuses given, “Well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent,” using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

    I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably, statistically, more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.

    So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it, or — and that context is being denied.

    And — and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

    Now, the question, for me, at least, and — and I think for a lot of folks is, “Where do we take this? How — how do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?”

    You know, I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests and some of that is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.

    But beyond protests or vigils, the question is: Are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government. The criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

    That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation, we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, you know, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

    Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

    You know, when I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped, but the other things was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias, and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

    And, initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that, it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them, and in turn be more helpful in — in applying the law. And, obviously, law enforcement’s got a very tough job.

    So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear, if state and local governments are receptive, and I think a lot of them would be. And let’s figure out, are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

    Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and — and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

    I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

    On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms, even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

    And for those who — who resist that idea, that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

    Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help, who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them, and values them, and is willing to invest in them?

    You know, I’m not naive about the prospects of some grand new federal program. I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I — I do recognize that, as president, I’ve got some convening power. And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out, how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that — and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed? You know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was, obviously, a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

    And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there’s been talk about, should we convene a conversation on race? I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when, you know, politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.

    On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s a possibility that people are a little bit more honest and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

    And let me just leave you with — with the final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.

    But, you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country. And so, you know, we have to be vigilant. And we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our — nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.

    But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long and difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

    All right?

    Thank you, guys.”

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    I like what he said.

    “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant. And they rendered a verdict.

    And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.”

    I suspect that he has the same opinion that I have: a murderer got off. That’s the price we pay for a system that is structured to err on the side of the guilty going free to avoid the error of the innocent being punished. I’m glad it’s set up that way.

    BTW, I saw a teapublican talking about the speech earlier today on CNN. He was reasonable, rational, and had some excellent policy proposals. The day that hell froze over….

    • Terry: You missed the question. What you think about what happened in a trial of which you ave little info; what you guess the president guessed about it, both do not matter.

      Do you think it’s appropriate for the chief of the executive branch of government to say anything at all about a trial, its result, anything?

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Do you think it’s appropriate for the chief of the executive branch of government to say anything at all about a trial, its result, anything?”

    Of course it is. I sometimes wonder what world it is that you live in.

    I’ve got news for you, President Obama had the audacity to recently comment on……A SUPREME COURT DECISION!!!!!!! Oh my oh my
    The chief of the executive branch commented on a decision by the PINNACLE of the judicial branch!!

    I have to ask. I admit I know little about France. In what political system is it inappropriate for the chief of the executive branch to comment on the result of a trial? I’m curious as to where you thought you were living.

    • Terry: I was referring to the principle of separation of powers.

      Please, do not mention to France, or my French origins at all or I will have to make you cry one more time.

      For readers who don’t know me: I have lived in this country for fifty years. I know everything that Prof. Terry knows plus the French language which gives me a different window on the same events. It’s an additional window. I have two windows; Prof. Terry has only one. What a source of weakness and confusion it must be for me to have two windows!

      Prof. Terry lives in Canada where nearly every two-bit politician is reasonably bilingual. I don’t know why he does not learn French (of, for that matter, any other foreign language that might help open up his mind).

      Prof. Terry : Thank you for answering my question in a straightforward manner. You are finally learning.

      Apparently, you see no danger to a powerful chief of the executive branch commenting loudly on a judiciary decision reached via an institutionally completely legitimate manner under the glare of television lights.

      I do.

      This is one of the differences between us.

      President Obama has every right to his opinion, of course. He has no right to use his privileged press access to spread his opinions. I am not saying that it’s illegal but that it’s immoral.

  8. Terry Amburgey says:

    Please return the favor and answer my question in a straightforward manner: in what culture is it immoral for the chief of the executive branch to comment on a judicial decision?

  9. It has to do with the spirit of the principle of separation of powers. The President gave a speech one day after massive demonstrations were announced to influence the federal judicial process.

    It’s not a “cultural” issue.

    The president missed an important opportunity to address the issue of the thousands of young black people (looking like him thirty years ago) who are murdered and assassinated by young black people (who look like him thirty years ago).

    Instead, he focused on one of the very rare cases of a young black man killed by a non-black.

    Why would he do a thing like this?

  10. For most recent news you have to pay a quick visit web and on web I found this web site as a best web site for newest updates.

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    Mores are always a cultural issue. You knew that back when you were a sociologist. But mores are widespread and significant. You’re the internet equivalent of a demented homeless guy ranting on the street about powdered sugar donuts being immoral. After all powdered sugar donuts violate the “spirit” of glazing.

    I’m glad I posted the text of his comments. It’s right above. I know you don’t like actually knowing what you’re talking about but it won’t take long. What did he say about the “federal judicial process”?

    “I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government. The criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.”

    “The president missed an important opportunity to address the issue of the thousands of young black people (looking like him thirty years ago) who are murdered and assassinated by young black people (who look like him thirty years ago).”

    Ah yes. The canard that blacks ignore black-on-black violence. I refuted that earlier in the thread. Since your memory doesn’t go back that far, I’ll just copy&paste to here….

    Why don’t blacks protest black-on-black on black crime? False premise; they do. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, here are some others
    It’s amazing what attending to media other than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can reveal.

  12. I real pleased to search for this site on bing, just what I
    was searching for : D too saved to bookmarks .

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    The president missed an opportunity to discuss an important issue: white-on-white crime.
    “Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

    What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.”

    When will teapublicans start dealing with white-on-white crime?

    • Terry: I don’t often know if you are serious or deliberately misleading. I don’t even know if you know the difference.

      Yes, by and large, people kills those they know. Thus black kill blacks and whites kill whites. That’s not where the news is.

      The new is that black dies of homicide at six to seven times the rate of whites.

      Contrary to an extreme naive views implicitly propagated by living relics of the civil rights movement, it’s not whites killing them. Needs to be said though it shouln’t.

      Hence, white on black homicide (justified or not ) is very rare, white on white is still rare, black on black is almost common.

      Mr Obama chose to spoke about a very rare event instead of talking about a class of events common enough to be a walking tragedy: the everyday killing of blacks by blacks. That was a real choice, a moral choice.

      An, by the way, if there is a category “blacks” not my choice, not my practice, it has a self-evident homicidal propensity: The something like 15% of the population that is black is responsible for something like 50% of all the homicides. That’s irrespective of who black criminals kill. (Remember: we have no disagreement on this point.)

      In a grave riot threat-ladden situation, Mr Obama used the bully pulpit to talk about a rare abcess rather than use the opportunity to discuss epidemic leprosy.

      Black teenagers killed by black teenagers are not as deeply dead as b a black teenager killed by a brown man, of course.

      If he were not an opportunist, Mr Obama would be a racist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s