Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
A minimum of research would have shown that you're incorrect, and the law's advocates condemn this.
I disagree. The law was written so that the guys with the macho fantasies would have a legal excuse to act them out.
From my understanding, it was already legal to shoot an attacker in self defense. Once you had exhausted the possibilities of escape.
That didn't sit well with the macho fantasy. The hero doesn't run from the bad guys. The hero stands his ground. The hero defeats the bad guys.
Gun-lovers who have self-aggrandizing fantasies of being the first defense of society, the ones who’ll protect us all, the saviors of The American Way Of Life, the cowboys – these are the very people who should not own guns, these are the people who should be arrested, these are the people who must not be encouraged by “Stand Your Ground”.
“Back Away” should still be the law, should be encouraged. If you have a weapon on you, your first thought should be how to avoid using it.
How do you "pursue" someone and then call it self-defense, or "standing your ground"???!!!!
I mean, if I get in a plane, and go to another city, because I see a suspicious guy on TV and assault him, am I defending myself because he might take the same plane back and harm me?
This is insane.
A note about the weapon: there are national standards for this type of Neighborhood Watch, and carrying a firearm is strictly prohibited by them. Zimmerman should have been carrying nothing more lethal than a phone. He also should have paid attention when 911 told him not to pursue the "suspect". I hope he gets thirty years.
"Stand your ground" is a way for white people to get away with killing blacks.
I rarely invoke race in arguments, but this one seems pretty clear to me.
Quoting ABC:
"These a**holes always get away," Zimmerman says in a call to a non-emergency number.
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
@7
Zimmerman's story is that he stopped following Martin when the cops told him to stop.
Then he got out of his vehicle to check the street sign to verify his location.
Which was when Martin attacked him from behind.
So it was "self defense" at that point in time because Zimmerman had already stopped following Martin.
The young lady that Martin was talking to on the phone has a different account of events as Martin narrated them. To me, her account sounds a LOT more plausible.
Latino kills black kid.
How can we blame whitey?
i am NOT saying Martin did anything wrong, and i think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at a minimum, a hate-crime murder at worst. i'm just trying to understand the logic of doing that.
There's also the matter of him saying "fucking coons" on the 911 tape.
But the real point of the story isn't the trigger-happy serial-911-botherer wannabe cop who did the killing. It's this:
Florida authorities, from the small town cops up to the state level, do not give a damn about black people and their rights, and will always take the side of someone who kills them without even thinking about it.
Also: black boys in particular grow up being "suspects" at all times, no matter where they are and what they are doing. Try to imagine that burden for just a second.
This is not primarily a story about individual racism. It's a story about institutional racism. They even passed a law to make situations like this more common and more easily defensible.
@ 14 is precisely right.
And laws can make it possible for people to kill people without consequence.
Look I have a brother and a brother-in-law who both work in law enforcement in Florida and even they would tell you Fnarf is completely right.
Also: black boys in particular grow up being "suspects" at all times, no matter where they are and what they are doing. Try to imagine that burden for just a second.
A Mom's Advice To Her Young, Black Sons
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149126015/…
You're going into "he asking for it" territory.
i guess i'm asking - could martin have died anyway, even without the stupid stand your ground law? we kinda won't ever really know.
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…
FL: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/inde…
There is no duty to retreat in WA, you can use deadly force outside the home, and you need to have reasonable suspicion outside the home that you are in danger of being seriously injured.
The WA law does not specifically state 'stand your ground' or 'force with force' - but that's about it.
That was a good listen.
Thanks for the link.
Personally, I can see that as a fearful response - hiding. No, it's not logical since he was out on the street and not running away, but fear doesn't generally help you think clearly.
No, the point he's raising is, "This was fucked up, but why was the guy dressed like that in the first place?"
(I remember back when the Williams sister's sister was murdered around 2002 in Compton, the first thing some people I knew asked was what was she doing there in the first place. Just a stupid question.)
Donna Britt is an author--I wonder if she's written anything about this topic. If not, I wouldn't be surprised to see something soon.
http://www.indiebound.org/book/978159558…
It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was intent on some sort of confrontation--he sounded pretty angry about the whole thing on the call. But #28 seemed to be looking at it from Trayvon Martin's perspective--"[if] someone starts stalking you." This particular comment didn't strike me as being about Zimmerman's intent, but rather what effect Zimmerman's actions created, which is part of the premise #13 started with.
Facts and evidence are all that matter.
So all we have are some not so great conflicting witness accounts, a 911 tape, some fucking shitty and questionable police work, the character histories of both parties (George Zimmerman was the ONLY one with a violent criminal history), absurd racist Florida laws, a 200lb grown-man shooter and a dead UNARMED 17 year old kid.
So. There are your facts so far. And they point to injustice and murder as far as I'm concerned.
Jesus. Even if Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman. A fit young 200lb grown man that can't handle a scrawny 17 year old kid without putting a bullet in him? Give me a break.
"About all we can say at this point is that the local cops didn't properly investigate the shooting."
Then you need to familiarize yourself with the facts that have been established so far. Primarily the recorded phone calls to the police. Right now you are denying that such facts exist.
@24
"i guess i'm asking - could martin have died anyway, even without the stupid stand your ground law?"
I think that is impossible to determine.
But since that was his immediate claim when the cops arrived less than 5 minutes after he killed Martin it does seem to have been something he considered.
Zimmerman, a violent criminal himself, went way out of his way to cause this tragedy.
First of all, my condolences to Trayvon's parents. It's a terrible tragedy anyway one looks at it. The Florida law should be the target of just criticism and eventual repeal. Zimmerman should be arrested and tried. He sounded like a paranoid goofball. Evidently, he's called 911 several times since he's been on the Neighborhood Watch. That's ridiculous.
That said, Fnarf I categorically disagree with you. When I first read of the story, Zimmerman, the perp was identified as white. Later and (now current) reports indicated he was white/hispanic. @8 has a point. What would the fallout be if the perp was a black male on the Neighborhood Watch? As a result, I don't believe it was "institutional racism". I believe it was and is the "institutional (almost universal) PERCEPTION" of the young black male especially one wearing a hoodie in our society.
I agree with Trayvon's mother who announced at the rally yesterday in NYC that it isn't about "black or white" people. It is about justice. I believe the law should be attacked and Zimmerman brought to trial. It should not be about race. Otherwise, why aren't there rallies for the thousands of black males killed by gunfire each year in America?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree with Fnarf @14... actually, I'd go a step further and say that Southern law enforcement DOES care about blacks' rights - they feel blacks don't HAVE any rights! At the very least, they feel white rights supercede black rights in any and all situations.
Perception of race leading to discrimination is the very definition of racism. And in the South (at least, in North Florida and in Georgia, where I lived for many years), it IS institutionalized. They don't hide their racism. It's not even subtle. They wear racism as they would a badge of honor... a badge that they're a "True Southerner."
(I know not ALL southerners are racist, but no where else have I seen it so blatantly accepted and even preferred by so many)
i'm just trying to understand the thinking behind making yourself (what seems to me) more vulnerable. i like peripheral vision; it's been very useful to humans as a species.
but once race is added to the mix, perhaps Martin felt it wise to hide his face from Zimmerman - which is why this is a tragedy that resonates.
(Note: I am not actually endorsing this course of action.)
Very likely. But that is my own prejudice against them (racist "Southerners").
I think the easier thing to focus on is the "bad cops" by reason of "incompetence".
Being incompetent does not exclude being racist. But it is a lot easier to show incompetence in this instance.
To show racism you'd need racist statements from the cops or you'd have to establish a history of racist behavior. Which can be difficult. And will always be subject to "controversy" by other people who see nothing wrong with such behavior.
Instead, focusing on "incompetence" (may "neglect"?) should be easy. And it gets easier every day that passes that they cling to their original statements and actions.
I think to me it came across similar to the question of what a woman was wearing when she was sexually assaulted. I think even the question of whether pulling his hood on made him more vulnerable is immaterial, too--he was vulnerable by being black.
But as for why, it could simply be because it was raining.
http://www.google.com/search?q=trayvon+m…
Incompetence plus malign intent. FI: The Bush administration was malcompetent.
I never said that the idea that violent crime committed by blacks was high - given how many of them live in poverty with poor family structures, which is a consequence of institutional racism, it's a given. But you said "10 to 20 times higher" which is a number straight out of your ass. I notice you don't try to say how many times higher it is now. Why is that?
None of this has any bearing on the case, but your pursuit of this point speaks a lot about you.
"None of this has any bearing on the case, but your pursuit of this point speaks a lot about you."
Precisely. I wouldn't have engaged had I realized.
I've kind of stopped.
Not to mention, they committed every single terrorist act in the country in the past 20 years.
Good point, law enforcement needs to pay more attention to white men who appear to all be sociopaths - "shoot first, ask questions later."
Your original statement in post # 41 was:
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups. When the NPR liberal interviewing her pointed that out she mumbled and changed the subject."
Your supporting documentation shows:
Total murders: 15,094
Killer was white: 4,849
Killer was black: 5,770
I'll go with a US population of 300,000,000.
80% white
13% black
... math happens ...
So there is 1 homicide where the killer is white for every 49,494 whites.
And 1 homicide where the killer is black for every 6,759 blacks.
Scary, yes. But no where near your original claim of 10x to 20x.
And totally irrelevant to this discussion where Martin was NOT armed and had NO criminal record.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicid…
Most homicides in the US are intra-racial. The vast majority of the "black violence" that racist dickheads like to piss their pants about is directed at other blacks.
In the US in 2005, 17 homicides were commited by a black person against a non-black stranger. In the same year there were over 2100 homicides commited by a white person against another white person they were acquainted with.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicid…
Zimmerman was in a fuck of lot more danger from his family, friends, and co-workers than he was from Trayvon Martin.
In fact, his best defence against Martin - if he was so fucking scared - would have been to introduce himself. In 2005 there were only two homicides commited by a black person against a non-black acquaintance.
"Perhaps I overstated my case a bit."
You said 10x to 20x more.
"However, even if ..."
So whether your original numbers were right or wrong is irrelevant to your position?
Moving the goalposts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_…
And, again, it does not matter because Martin was not armed nor did he have a criminal record.
And yet you keep going on about it. Even when your numbers are shown to be incorrect.
"Perhaps that 10-20X figure isn't accurate, but it is still true because I was speaking from my heart."
And what is in your heart? Or are you trying to be funny now because you've been dragging this on for so long?
"It's hard to find accurate statistics going that far back, but I know that before the 1960s crime rates were far lower than they are today."
The good ol' days. Everything was better back then. At least you remember it as being better because you have no memory of it.
Prohibition ended in 1933.
John Dillinger died in 1934.
Al Capone died in 1947.
Search Google for the term "cocaine-crazed Negro brain".
Fun facts!
Prohibition gave us the Mafia!
Magnum ammo was invented in 1935 (right year?) because the rum runners during Prohibition wore bullet proof vests.
Ah, the idyllic paradise that was yesteryear.
As for your post @ 71, I see you're trying to be funny. In the context of this whole thread, though, it's just sad.
"In my opinion the brazen racism, sexism, and homophobia of those days was terrible. However, I think crime was less of a problem then."
A country where rum runners where shooting each other with submachine guns.
Didn't Dillinger and his gang kill at least 6 law enforcement agents?
I'm sure you can supply a link to something similar within the past 5 years. No, you cannot.
The law was written so that the guys with the macho fantasies would have a legal excuse to act them out. Not because there is more crime now than in the past.
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups. "
That does not appear to be correct.
Is it a massive conspiracy about the current race war and gun culture!?
probably not
I like how the pictures of zimmerman are from a booking a decade ago, and the pictures of the martyr innocent 17 year old ( one year from military service / adulthood ) are from his preteen years playing high school football.
Emotion isnt involved in this at all. National riots to the rescue!
Tell me why, in light of the arguments YOU have made on this thread, that I should NOT consider you a racist. Because all I have from you are two things: irrelevant, poorly supported assertions which do nothing to refute Fnarf @ 14, and NO answers for the fact-based posts regarding the racist nature of this murder of Trayvon Martin.
He called 911 46 times, not "several".
The cops made the same assumption we all did when confronted with a perceptibly white man named Zimmerman. As far as they were concerned, he was white. Every action they've taken since then belies their breathtaking racism.
And there are many *white* Hispanics, including millions of residents of Spain.
"Is it racist to suggest that African Americans are incarcerated at a higher rate than whites because African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than white people?"
Yes. Yes it is racist.
Take the average black fireman. Is he more likely to commit a crime than the average white fireman?
Or how about the average black doctor. Is he more likely to commit a crime than the average white doctor?
Or the average black astrophysicist. More likely to commit a crime than the average white astrophysicist?
I say no. I say that the average black fireman is no more (or less) likely to commit a crime than the average white fireman. And so on for the other examples. That is because I am not a racist.
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups."
That does not appear to be correct.
WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK.
If it's not accurate, calling it true is a bit of a stretch, buddy!
@81: According to Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia, 20-49 is classified as "lots", and "several" means 5-9. So it would be more correct to say that he called 911 lots of times.
@82: It is racist to suggest that African-Americans are inherently more criminal than whites.
@83: There you go! Case control studies help account for potential confounding factors.
If it's due to past injustice or dysfunctional culture or both, the disproportionate rate young black men commit crime IS higher that young white men by a statistically significant degree. Not 10 to 20 times. But enough to be very troubling. And for fuck sake that is worth examining with out screaming "Racist! How dare you!" every five seconds. Acknowledging it shouldn't get anybody riled up. And maybe considering some additional cause OTHER than slavery 200 hundred years ago is also no reason to shit your pants. Okay? Lay off the guy.
The fact is right wingers won't think talk about honestly it because - well - they don't care how many young black men get incarcerated. And left wingers won't talk about it because - well - it rubs a particular set of assumptions uncomfortably. The problem is the cause of this issue at this go beyond current institutional racism and it's very hard to fix without EVERYBODY being honest. And even then I'm not sure we can fix it. We sure can't fix it by screaming at a dude on internet thread.
Anyway. To Ken Mehlman - The distasteful fact of disproportionate black on black crime is fucking irrelevant in THIS case. A case of an unarmed young man murdered by a violent criminal. A criminal who apparently has the weight and power of local law enforcement shielding him. And THAT is a type power disparity or racism we CAN do something about.
Hmm? Why the pettiness regarding "several" vs. "46 times" Zimmerman calling 911?
That's silly.You missed my point. You and I are in agreement that Zimmerman should be arrested and tried? Right? I also support the repeal of the law.
Regarding "white" vs. "white/hispanic" again misses a point in my posting. I asked the rhetorical question "What would the fallout be if the perp was a black male on the Neighborhood Watch?". That's all. One can wonder about that. Right?
I merely disagreed with Fnarf. It isn't about institutional racism. I support what Trayvon's. Mother said yesterday in NYC. It isn't about race it's about justice.
And, tkc has a point. I don't believe mehlman is a racist. Further discussion is needed.
FWIW: As someone who occasionally deals with the kind of data presented at the FBI page, I can tell you that when race is "unknown," or "not given," it's almost always white, for a variety of intuitively obvious reasons. To the point that in situations that are not racially charged, and there is little potential for negative drama over it, that category often gets pooled with white, without comment. Taking that into account, that data ends up looking a little different ... something like 9,000 murders by white people vs. 6,000 by african-americans.
@66: Further info ... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
For example, he said that the known facts were a few. I provided a link to a site that had compiled many more, all sourced from reputable media sources, and he had nothing to say to that. Nothing. At. All.
I say Mehlman is NOT arguing in good faith. He's arguing the way Seattleblues sometimes did, when he was able to keep his bile in check. It may seem reasonable because it isn't confrontational, but there's more to fair debate than that.
"Good point. Allow me to rephrase that. Her argument ignores the fact that African-Americns kill people at more than 7 times the rate of other ethnic groups."
Yeah. Did you see my link to "moving the goalposts"? I don't think you understood it. You made an outrageous statement to support your position. Now you are walking it back.
A black fireman is no more likely to kill someone that a white fireman is.
"However it is a bit of a problem for Michelle Alexander's theory that the criminal justice policies of twenty-first century America are 'the new Jim Crow.' "
Again, when you make a statement and "support" it with numbers you make up ... and those numbers are then shown to be false ... but that does not affect your original statement, does it? It seems that your claim is independent of facts.
"I'm not deliberately avoiding stuff I don't have a good answer for."
Really? Because it sure seems that way. Because that is what you keep doing.
Take the average black fireman. Is he more likely to commit a crime than the average white fireman?
Or how about the average black doctor. Is he more likely to commit a crime than the average white doctor?
Or the average black astrophysicist. More likely to commit a crime than the average white astrophysicist?
I say no. I say that the average black fireman is no more (or less) likely to commit a crime than the average white fireman. And so on for the other examples. That is because I am not a racist.
Racist or simply a poor thinker.
The "average" individuals are imaginary. There should be absolutely no difference in the likelihood of their rates of criminality.
"I say that I have no idea whether the average black firemen or doctor or astrophysicist is more (or less) likely to commit a crime than the average white firemen or doctor or astrophysicist."
Yet you like making up numbers like:
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups."
So if you cannot say that it is the black doctors or firemen or astrophysicists then who is committing all those crimes?
"We all believe and say stuff that is wrong from time to time. Sensible people reevaluate there preconceived notions about what is true in light of new evidence."
Yes, they do. They do not keep making the same claim. Yet you are still making the same claim.
e.g. sources quoted in http://www.scribd.com/doc/32978392/Murde…
with there being a correlation in crime rate to both the unemployment rate and to the percentage of the population being 20-29-year-old males.
Of course Zimmerman isn't a country club white, otherwise he'd have let the police do their work (taxes don't you know).
One of the things I find disturbing is that, for the most part, only black politicians are shown calling for justice/investigation/federal intervention. Is this due to the focus of news organizations, or a lack of empathy on the part of non-black leaders?
On the topic of hoodies, I wish the protest wouldn't use that as a focus. Anything that takes away from the humanity and individuality of each and every participant, IMO takes away from their desired message. This tragedy wasn't a nameless and faceless act, and should be treated as such. Mr. Martin wasn't a hoodie, he was a person.
Peace.
Criminals. A disproportionate of whom are American born black men ages 15-24.
There are not many 15 year old astro-physicists out there.
I fail to see your line of reasoning here. Please explain why you are harping on the professions of a contrasting demographic?
Yeah this dude wildly exaggerated a claim. And maybe he isn't arguing in as good faith as he should. But here you are belaboring a silly point while avoiding another. As far as I can tell you are not arguing in good faith, either. If you want to approach this in good faith then drop it because crime statistics are irrelevant to the case at hand.
If not, discuss it honestly. Department of Justice and FBI crime statistics are a bitch but they don't lie. Matt from Denver (and I assume you as well) keep saying Mehlman was claiming that crime was "inherently" black. But he never said that did he? You guys did.
He made a bullshit exaggerated claim. Sure. But the actual fact - that young black men commit crime SEVEN times the rate of the rest of country IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL! We should be outraged. Outraged at the system for allowing that to happen.
That fact is telling us something is really wrong with our country. Ignoring this fact, dismissing at a just a legacy of history, or screaming "racism" ever time it's brought up, plays right into the hands of the very people who DON'T want that terrible statistic to change.
"Criminals."
So you say that "criminals" commit "crimes". Nice tautology there.
"He made a bullshit exaggerated claim. Sure."
No. The POINT is that he made a bullshit exaggerated claim in an attempt to support a position that would NOT have been supported if he had cite the real statistics.
His claim being that institutional racism does not exist because blacks are up to 20x more likely to kill someone than whites were.
Case 1 - Now, institutional racism cannot be shown to exist if the crime rates are equivalent.
Case 2 - Nor can it be shown if blacks commit a far larger (20x) number of crimes. Then it really is blacks being criminal.
Case 3 - But institutional racism CAN be a factor in the middle ground.
He walked his facts back to Case 3 but still claimed that the position that he tried to establish with Case 2.
"Department of Justice and FBI crime statistics are a bitch but they don't lie."
Define "lie". They're based upon convictions and such. Yet there have been MANY cases where the convictions of "murderers" have been found to be false with new DNA evidence.
And that is another instance of institutional racism. The killer was described as "a black man" and the police caught "a black man" and the jury convicted "a black man" but the man the jury convicted of the crime was not the man who committed the crime.
"Ignoring this fact, dismissing at a just a legacy of history, or screaming "racism" ever time it's brought up, plays right into the hands of the very people who DON'T want that terrible statistic to change."
You are wrong.
Which is what I illustrated with my "black fireman" example.
The issue is not that "blacks" kill people more than 7x the rate that whites do.
A black fireman is no more likely to kill someone than a white fireman is.
Once you normalize for age / economics / location and so forth you find that a black man WHO CAN AFFORD A PRIVATE LAWYER is no more likely to be convicted of a crime than a white man who can afford his own lawyer.
But here is the problem: Concern Trolling has now derailed the discussion at hand - the case of an unarmed young black man who appears to have been stalked and killed by a white man - away from the racism that appears to underlie this crime and towards the issue of the disproportionate rate of young black criminality.
We can't scream racism every time someone brings up the fact that the crime rate among young black men is high. I agree that to do so prevents a rational discussion of the reasons for that and the solutions to it.
However, we can suggest that racism is at play if, while discussing the apparent premeditated murder of an unarmed young black man by a white man, someone says "Well, you know, young black man do commit crimes at a much greater rate..." Trayvon Martin, unlike his murderer, was never charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. Unlike his murderer, he was unarmed. Unlike his murderer, he was the fucking VICTIM of a crime.
Are you saying that you now believe that a black fireman is MORE likely to commit a crime than a white fireman?
Because that is what you just implied.
Or maybe you meant that a black fireman is LESS likely to commit a crime than a white fireman.
Which is it?
So, in your opinion, if the only difference is their skin color then, in your opinion still, they WILL exhibit different criminal behaviors.
Look up the definition of "racist", okay?
What was that that you had said earlier?
@95
"I say that I have no idea whether the average black firemen or doctor or astrophysicist is more (or less) likely to commit a crime than the average white firemen or doctor or astrophysicist."
So you completely contradict yourself between post @95 and post @107.
You are a troll.
"I think this makes African Americans less inclined to follow society's rules."
I'll keep this going so that other people will be able to recognize the "logic".
@107
"I'm suggesting that either is a possibility."
So in 107 you say that they may be less inclined to be criminal but in 109 you claim that they are more inclined to be criminal.
@41
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups."
So your current position is that a black fireman is ethnically/culturally inclined to commit more crime than a white fireman.
Seriously, look up the definition of "racist".
"We watch black people closely because they're criminally inclined. We know this because they'd probably be out mugging people if we didn't keep an eye on them."
Awesome, isn't it? It isn't often that you get a chance to see this deeply into the racist mindset.
@111
"Perhaps middle class black commit fewer crimes because it is harder for them to get away with stuff."
So the black fireman would be committing more crimes than the white fireman if he thought he could get away with it.
What do YOU think is responsible for African Americans committing disproportionately many crimes in this country? Do you think it's that they're black?
So the black fireman is more inclined to commit more crimes than the white fireman but it isn't his fault because past injustices have made him that way.
This is why I am keeping this going.
"I don't know about that, but living in a racist society might make him a bit resentful,"
When you had previously posted:
"Perhaps middle class black commit fewer crimes because it is harder for them to get away with stuff."
And:
"I think this makes African Americans less inclined to follow society's rules."
Not to mention your other claim:
"Her entire argument ignores the fact that African-American males shoot and kill people at 10 to 20 times the rate of men from other ethnic groups. When the NPR liberal interviewing her pointed that out she mumbled and changed the subject. Naturally, he didn't press the issue."
So now you're claiming that blacks ARE more likely to commit crimes (justifying the fear of black men) but that it is not THEIR fault because society made them that way (which contradicts your previous claim).
White? Really? I've seen his photo. I've met dishwashers who looked 'whiter'.
Btw how many you would walk through a neighborhood with loose shi tzus and how many of you would walk through a neighborhood with loose pitbulls. If you say no to the pitbulls, you are, apparently, a racist.