Can we help black families move from Florida? Clearly you are not wanted there. Bill O'Reilly thought it would be somehow a real problem if he threatened to move out of New York (because, you know, those deadly taxes). But what if, fer reals, black folk refused to relocate to Florida and those there did everything they could to leave? We could start a charity to help low income folks - like refugees. Would anyone notice or care? Would it cause a reaction? Or would it simply make the people who move safer?
This shooter is going to have an ugly time in prison. He'll never know when a shiv will sink into his guts, only that it's coming one day. That gives me some satisfaction.
@1: At a minimum, it'd make Florida a solid republican state, instead of being purple. So, better for the people who emigrate, but perhaps worse for you guys as a country.
TNC always has the best words. Today's are, to my mind, even better.
>slaughter of black children

Jesus fucking Christ, come on already
Florida appears to be very much of a republican state in spite of the black population---they merely disinfranchise as many blacks from the vote as they need to in order to insure republican rule.
@5: Yes? You have something to say on the subject? Please, give us the benifit of your wisdom.
Life in prison is going unpunished? Plus could be tried again, not found not guilty, it was a mistrial.
Anna asked:
"How is this country's relentless slaughter of black children still going unpunished in 2014?"

The story she linked to said:
"Dunn was found guilty on three charges of attempted murder for shooting into a car full of unarmed teenagers; he is expected to spend 20 years in prison for each conviction."

Tell us, Anna, how exactly do guilty verdicts on three charges of attempted murder and 20 years in prison for Dunn qualify as "going unpunished"?
@9, you're focusing on the wrong guy. Yes, Dunn got a lot of jail time, but none of it was for killing Jordan Davis. The murder of Jordan Davis was unpunished, because Jordan Davis was not a person in modern Florida.

If he gets released on parole for "good behavior", Dunn will be free in 20 years. That is not life in prison, unless he really is the walking heart attack that he looks like.
Fnarf, you're arguing process, not result, and you're reframing Anna's words to make a point she didn't make. Let her make it, if she's inclined. Other writers with an equal if not greater stake in this debate have managed to acknowledge that Dunn will in fact go to prison for a long time, and still face a second trial for murder. Anna can't seem to make that tiny leap.
Dunn is going away for a long time as a result of his actions on that particular day. The argument appears to be that the label stapled to his forehead is not the one everyone prefers. That he's a racist is plain. That he fired a weapon into a car full of unarmed children is obvious. That he was not convicted for murdering Davis is accurate. That he is going unpunished is ludicrous.
"That he was not convicted for murdering Davis is accurate. That he is going unpunished is ludicrous."

How so? seems accurate to me. He *could* be punished in the future, but not currently...
Anyone else got anything that's helping you get through this?

The fact that a mistrial is not an acquittal, and that the DA has already said that she intends to re-try the case? And in the meantime, Dunn will at no point be leaving jail.
In a related story from PBS last month regarding racial bias in murder trials, they went through a study that looked at 43,500 cases in both Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. Only 25 of those murders were white-on-black murder.

That's not a slaughter. And that's not an epidemic.

While there are certainly racist hardships that exist in America, you can't say black-on-black crime is a lie without also insinuating that blacks can't help but commit crime against each other. Statistically, the majority of murder is committed in the same racial lines. Whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks, Hispanics kill Hispanics, etc. That's not a lie.
He is going unpunished for the crime of murder is the point. He is certainly going away for a very long time, yes, and that is punishment yes, but again, not for the murder of Jordan Davis. That, if nothing else is slap in the face to his family. It says in effect that his murder doesn't count, particularly since the jury was given the option to hand down a second degree verdict instead of one of first degree and did not.
One would think that the fact that he was convicted for trying to kill every one in the car, but not for the actual murder he committed would tend to appear outrageous to the average conscience having human.
@17, the leap from the legal distinctions to an accusation of indifference and no conscience is weak and self-serving. Let's put your suggestion more clearly: to disagree with you is more than just disagreement. It's tantamount to moral failure. Keep singing in the echo chamber.
@15 agree. Spot on.

I generally read and regard Coates with some respect. But, he lost me with "I will not respect the lie".

I lived in the Chicago area before moving out here (80s). I vividly recall under then Chicago Police Superintendent, Fred Rice (an African-American gentleman who I met and shook hands with) and others an effort to curb/eliminate "black-on-black" crime. I remember a poignant poster at CTA stops featuring two African-American boys' arms on each others shoulder smiling. The poster fostered brotherhood. So, it isn't a lie. Black on black crime is a real and tragic phenomenon.
@15: I don’t disbelieve your statement or the statistics you mention. It seems entirely reasonable that violence within a given community would be perpetrated by, and upon, those with whom we interact most.
That is one issue.

The other issue is the perception that black teens are so dangerous by virtue of their very existence that to shoot them for playing loud music, or carrying candy, or, as in a story today, participation in a prank on a fellow student, is a reasonable response.

The problem is that often people will use the statistics regarding the first issue to minimize the second.
@18: I am saying that that is how it appears.
He killed the boy.
He was not convicted of killing the boy.
He was however convicted of trying to kill the occupants of the car whom he missed.
On the face of it, that appears absurd and outrageous, does it not?

Where there points of law that led to this outcome? That seems plausible certainly. I served on the jury for a murder trial in Chicago, and these things are never as cut and dried as one might think or hope. But I can also tell you from that experience that a conviction boils down to the twelve people in that room and they are not lawyers approaching their deliberations with a background in case law. They are ordinary men and women who bring with them their own baggage and prejudices.
I read Coates article and it made no sense. How did Dunn get away with murdering anyone? He's in prison. He jury could not agree on what degree of murder he committed. So what? The same exact thing happened in Seattle with the Jewish Federation shooting. It was a hung jury. I don't remember Coates writing any articles about that incident and the injustice of the Crown Heights pogrom shows that it is fine to kill Jews as long as you are black or Muslims
The #dangerousblackkids hashtag is an exercise in manipulation. Black children are killed every day in drive by shootings in this country. It aint white racists doing it.
ps- here is a look at #dangerousjewishkids.……
(The kid was attacked by a black racist mob while police stood by and did nothing. No one was punished). You won't hear those crying for Trayvon and Jordan ever shed any tears for those murdered, assaulted and threatened during the Crown Heights pogrom. They won't even call it an injustice.
So Seattle cries racism when a jury in Florida convicts a white man of 4 out of 5 crimes he is charged with against a person of color but deadlocked on the 5th.
When a Seattle jury deadlocked on 14 out of 15 crimes a Muslim and person of color is charged with in relation to a hate crime there is no problem.…
Yes, white people don't care about the lives of black males. One can tell if the black people were in charge things would be a lot better.…
"He is going unpunished for the crime of murder is the point."
Where did you get that idea? They are planning on retrying him. Did you not read that? Yes it shows racism in this country since if he was a person of color or Muslim he would have been found guilty. We know this since in Seattle a Muslim who was also a person of color named Naveed Haq who was on trial for the attack on the Jewish Center ended in a mistrial in 14 out of the 15 counts. I wonder why there was no outrage about that in the Stranger and by all those who can't get over the deadlock in this case.…
@21, I agree that Dunn was not convicted of killing the boy. My initial point was that he is being punished – significantly, as in a virtual life sentence - for his actions. Anna's post simply ignores that fact, leaving the entirely false impression that Dunn is walking away. He is not.
Whether Dunn should have been directly convicted of killing the boy is a slightly different question. Of course he should have been - but merely wanting this case to match the Zimmerman case doesn't make it match. From my standpoint, prosecutors gambled when they tried for first-degree murder. That's a high bar. Why the jury couldn't find a basis for second-degree murder or manslaughter is the bigger mystery.
@20 You're completely missing the point I was making, which is unrelated to the point you're making.

The point I was making is that white-on-black crime is a red herring. It's even less of a red herring than infants getting shot by unprotected guns. The real issue that needs help is black-on-black crime, even more than white-on-white crime, because it is disproportionate to the size of the black community and it disproportionately affects black youth compared to black adults. Saying that black-on-black crime is a lie is a severely harmful lie that damns the community to its own violence without addressing anything to help them.

Michael Dunn is an asshole who will be retried. He deserves the book thrown at him. But, this isn't an epidemic of murder committed against black youth. 25 cases out of 43,500 is notable epidemic. It's a red herring that points people's attention towards something meaningless and away from the real issues of institutionalized poverty, ghettoization, the predatory infiltration of highly-addicting drugs, and commercialized glorification of materialism and inner-city violence.
"Anyone else got anything that's helping you get through this?"
Get through what? A white man murdered a black male in FL and hurt several others. He was convicted on all but one count and will be tried again on the 5th.
What helped Seattle get through the mistrial in the Naveed Haq mistrial Anna? What helped Seattle get through the injustice of the TubaMan's brutal mob murder? There have been far worse black (and brown) on white injustices in this very city that elicited zero outrage but you're all worked up about 2 incidents on the other side of the country?
@27 *25 cases out of 43,500 is not a big epidemic.

Washington State is, or was when I practiced law there a few years ago, also a Stand Your Ground state--not by statute, like Florida, but by common law. Washington calls it "no duty to retreat." If you are in a place you have a right to be, and you reasonably believe you are in danger, you can respond with force as necessary (even if it later turns out you are mistaken.)

Suppose you are walking down the street when you are confronted by your abusive ex, who has previously threatened to kill you. Spitting mad, red-faced, s/he comes at you, hands outstretched to strangle. You shove him/her away; s/he falls, strikes his/her head on the curb, and dies. It is later revealed that s/he had recently had serious back surgery and was physically incapable of harming you. Nonetheless, you can be acquitted; under the law, you have the right to walk down the street--you aren't compelled to flee just because your ex is a bullying asshole. Furthermore, you reasonably--though wrongly--perceived a threat, and your response was reasonable. This seems pretty fair to me.

To put it another way: Suppose Jordan Davis had in fact pointed a shotgun at the defendant: should the defendant not have had the right to defend himself?

I'm not saying the defendant here was telling the truth, and I'm not denying that race may have been a factor. I am just talking about the law as written. Too many people in liberal states like Washington look smugly at stand-your-ground states, without either 1) realizing their own state has had the same rule for many years, or 2) suggesting what the law should be. (Must you back down before bullies and attackers? Must you not only have a fear of being harmed, but be objectively correct so that, for instance, if you kill a robber who threatens you with a realistic but nonfunctional gun, you are a murderer?)
Less than 2 months ago Charles Mudede felt more sympathy to a gun wielding maniac then those he terrorized. I wonder why he doesn't do a similarly sympathetic article entitled "Who Is Michael Dunn?"
I also remember when a young white Seattle native was killed by 3 black people in a robbery in NYC Charles was not that sympathetic. She resisted and said something like "Are you going to shoot me?" And they did. Charles thought it was perfectly acceptable to blame a white murder victim for not complying with 3 black people but to suggest this episode could have been prevented if Jordan had complied with Michael Dunn would be met with outrage.
^ Sorry I forgot a link. Imagine the outrage if this article were about Michael Dunn instead of Trevonte Brown. Black man victimizes white people= sympathy for the black man
White man victimizes black people=sympathy for the black man…
@27: I don’t think we are actually far apart on the issue of black on black crime and how damaging it is. It is a real issue I agree, and to call it a lie entirely inaccurate. I also agree that institutionalized poverty, and ghettoization etc. are problems that are in no way being addressed enough.

But I also think the separate issue of the demonization of black teens is also a problem and poster hayden c @22-25, 28 quite neatly illustrates my point about people using the statistics regarding black on black crime to minimize deaths under those circumstances such as the death of Jordan Davis, and the institutional racism that informs that demonization.

So yeah, I don’t think we disagree. You would like to see a much greater emphasis on social justice issues that impact violence with the black community. Me too.
Like I said though, two separate issues.
@26: I agree. That's the rub. Why didn't they convict on the lesser charge? Hopefully we'll see a more just outcome at the retrial.
@ 11 20 years for Good behavior not how I keep hearing it, CW is he going away for life.
@33 I think hayden c is crudely and stupidly making a separate point than either you or I are making (though tangentially related to my point). hayden c seems to be making a point on the media making big hullabaloos about white men killing black men, while the media diminishes or outright ignores cases where the races were reversed. hayden c cites articles where Chaz diminishes the crimes committed by black youth, largely to make points not directly about to the crime, yet completely related to it.

His point is actually valid underneath the racial implications that he loads into his posts. The Stranger has a large point of reporting on crimes committed against 3 groups: the lgbtq community (by non-lgbtq members), the black community (only by non-black criminals), and the cap hill denizens. Black on black crime is largely ignored by The Stranger because it doesn't relate to their largely white, largely middle-class readership.

This is tangentially related to the accusation that Michael Dunn is a red herring which is representative of a crime group that doesn't actually exist. The Stranger cares because it points to racism in the country, even going so far as to hysterically call it an epidemic against black youth, but largely ignores the actual problems in the country.

The entry that hayden c links to from Chaz about the gun-toting maniac (hilarious over-exaggeration) addresses the issues that get ignored rather obliquely, instead of taking anything head on. And that's a shame.
"Anyone else got anything that's helping you get through this?"
Well, for a start, definitely don't read this comment thread or any others on this story.
@36: I think that's a pretty fair assessment of The Stranger's bias, but I agree with them that these sorts of crimes are a symptom of a greater problem rather than a red herring. Much like lynchings (while statistically not that common an occurrence) murders like these serve to remind the black community that in the end the fact that they are black is a good enough reason for them to be killed. That has a corrosive effect.
@22: Actually, two of the Crown Heights rioters were convicted and sentenced to a combined 40 years in prison. Also, that was over 22 years ago, so why are you demanding that The Stranger report on it now? Go play in the food processor, you racist fuckwit.
@Hayden & Misanthrope. Thank you for eloquently making TNC's point.

@Adversary: You have no idea what you're talking about. In Washington, self-defense is just that--a defense to a crime. Once the prosecutor proves that the crime has taken place, it is the defendant's burden to prove that the action taken in defense was justified. In Florida, all a defendant has to do is allege that he or she was fearful, and it then becomes the prosecutor's burden to prove otherwise. That's what happened to Trayvon Martin, and that's what happened here.

And Hayden/Misanthrope, to make the obvious point that you both seem too fucking stupid to get, it is not public outrage that is the issue. It is whether the legal system institutionalizes fear of black males as a justification for murdering them. In this case, all Dunn had to say was that he thought a black male had a shotgun, and he escaped conviction. It did the prosecution no good to prove that there was no shotgun, that no witness saw a shotgun, that the defendant never called the police, that he went home and never mentioned a shotgun to anyone. None of that makes any difference because under FLORIDA LAW, all he has to say is that he thought he saw a shotgun, and his fear becomes literally a get-out-of-jail free card. What's outrageous isn't that a white man killed a black man, or a black man killed a white man, or vice versa. No one gives a crap about Dunn or Zimmerman. What's outrageous is that FLORIDA LAW--the law that is supposed to protect the innocent--permits racist fear to serve as a justification for murder. (And that's why TNC expected--and here he got--the red herring of black-on-black crime. Congratulations for behaving as badly as expected.)
@40 Look who fell in the trap of negligible effect. Yes it was you.

The law in Florida that allows for SYG is so negligible on the amount of total crime that arguing about it is a symptom of the liberal left's love of ineffectual outrage or back patting.

In the whole United States, all 50 states, there was 25 total white on black murders in one year. That's one for every other state. That's 0.05% of the total murders.

Feel free to argue about it until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it any less of an ineffectual outrage. Changing SYG won't have any visible effect on the number of murders that happen every year. And, I'm tired of listening to people bitching about things that don't matter with the vigor that they do, while completely ignoring the things that do matter for fear that talking about those things may make them sound racist. Fuck that.
@40 wow, I must really have gotten lucky with all those self-defense cases I won then. I love that you are not only wrong, but super cocky about it--you're dumb, but you have a lot of pride.

In Washington, once the defendant presents a bare minimum of evidence of self-defense, then proving the absence of self-defense becomes part of the prosecution's burden. I.e., the prosecutor must prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, just like every other element of the crime. It is not, as you said, "the defense's burden."

The only real difference I am aware of is that the SYG law requires a pretrial hearing on the SD issue at which the prosecution has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it wasn't self defense. Which should be no problem since they'll have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt later anyway. An extra procedural step, that's all, so that defendants with strong SD claims have a chance to avoid trial. Dunn obviously went to trial, so irrelevant here.
Yeah--he didn't get acquitted, he got convicted on all but one of the counts, and the jury couldn't get unanimity either way on the first-degree murder charge, so they're trying again. That shouldn't be surprising, because it looks like Dunn committed second-degree murder, and the prosecution overcharged him, like prosecutors do to basically everyone (usually to try to force a plea agreement).
@42: A defendant cannot present a self-defense instruction to the jury without first "producing some evidence which tends to prove that the killing occurred in circumstances amounting to self-defense." State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237, 850 P.2d 495, 22 A.L.R.5th 921 (1993) (citing State v. Acosta, 101 Wn.2d 612, 619, 683 P.2d 1069 (1984); State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484, 488, 656 P.2d 1064 (1983) (plurality by Williams, J.)). One of the elements of self-defense is the person relying on the self-defense claim must have had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm. Janes, 121 Wn.2d at 237 (citing RCW 9A.16.050). If the trial court finds no reasonable person in the defendant's shoes could have perceived a threat of great bodily harm, then the court does not have to instruct the jury on self-defense. Bell, 60 Wn. App. at 567-68, 805 P.2d 815; see also State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 575, 589 P.2d 799 (1979) (If any one of the elements of self-defense is not supported by the evidence, the self-defense theory is not available to a defendant, and the defendant cannot present the theory to a jury.) An actual assault by the victim is not required to establish self-defense, however, a defendant's testimony as to fear is insufficient. "Some evidence of aggressive or threatening behavior, gestures, or communication by the victim" is required. State v. Walker, 40 Wn. App. 658, 663, 700 P.2d 1168 (1985).

In short, Florida permits fear of black males to justify killing them; Washington does not.
@41: In the Reconstruction South, there were "only" 50 to 100 lynchings per year. Under your analysis, not a big deal, because that was just a fraction of the homicides committed! I guess we only have to worry about legalized murder when crime rates drop.
@45 That's 400% more killings! And, according to this Thesis paper, lynchings peaked at about 231 per year. In the south alone.

And, back then, murder rates were far lower. In the late 19th century, homicide rate was only 1 per 100,000. Since in 1880, the population was about 50m, that means there were around 500-600 murders.

Doing math, even if lynchings didn't constitute part of the reported rate, that would still be 1/3 of the total murder rate in the US at the time.

Tell me again how this is just as important as lynchings, because I'll laugh in your fucking face for being so goddamned ridiculous and hysterical.
@44 Right, a bare minimum of evidence, like I said--just enough that it's possible for a reasonable finder of fact to find self defense. I.e., a prima facie case.

And the bit about "some evidence of aggressive or threatening behavior" being required just means that it isn't enough for the defendant to say, "I was afraid of him, so I shot him." The fear has to be reasonable, i.e. a fear that a reasonable, objective person might have. "I was afraid of him because he balled up his fist and said he was going to kill me." That is the same requirement as Florida--reasonable fear.

Florida doesn't permit you to shoot someone just because you are afraid of him. Just like Washington, the fear must be justified by some evidence of aggressive behavior that would have caused a reasonable person to feel fear. Evidence like, e.g., a defendant's testimony that the person he shot pointed a shotgun at him. (Whether you believe it or not, a defendant's testimony is evidence.)

It is amusing to me that you are quoting law at me that proves my point while thinking you are disproving it.

And you know, Mr. Coates and everyone concerned about black people getting screwed by the Man should really support this law. This law benefits criminal defendants, and the fact is, a black man is a lot more likely in this country to wind up a criminal defendant than to be killed by a white man who claims to be standing his ground. Changing the law to get the Dunns and George Zimmermans of the world, of whom there are very few as Misanthrope pointed out, is going to get a lot more black men locked up than it is middle-aged white guys.
As I said these killings and lynching are comparable in that they serve the same purpose. Without having to kill all that many people the message that being black is a good enough reason to be murdered is communicated with a chilling and corrosive effect. It is one tool in the toolbox of oppression, certainly not the only one, and acknowledging that doesn't mean it is the most important one. As you've pointed out there are many other awful issues facing the African American community but it's not a zero sum game. We can be appalled by, and work against more than one facet of institutional racism at a time. Fighting over setting a hierarchy seems like a waste of time.
@48 You'd all have a point, if Michael Dunn won't be getting 60 years, mandatory, for the three second-degree murder attempts he was convicted for (each of which has a 20 year mandatory sentence). And, if he wasn't going to get retried.

It's not like Dunn got off scot-free. He got 60 years. And, may get more for the actual murder at a later trial (currently unknown).

The problem with not making an effort to steer the boat is that there is a lot of effort being aimed at something that doesn't have all that much effect. The Florida law isn't that big of a tool of oppression. If people are going to expound a whole helluva lot of energy on fixing something, how about spending it looking at and examining the major tools of oppression that have significant effects? Otherwise, its a lot of energy for not much effect.
Already sentenced to a minimum of 60 years and awaiting trial for murder is unpunished?
@49 & 50: For my part I never said he wasn't being punished. I said that he had not been punished for the murder he committed, and it is that I think people find so offensive. It's as if the murder didn't matter. That is the perception.
Dunn is to be tried again and hopefully the outcome will be more just. He killed Jordan Davis and people want him to pay the price for that crime.
@51 Ah, so it's a semantic outrage. Carry on.
@52: Seriously? You don't understand why people feel this way? Do you honestly think that for his parents and the black community that the issue is one of semantics?

I agree with you that there are many other social justice issues effecting the black community that get short shrift, and that a great deal more should be done to address them. I think your position on that is sound and it is unfortunate that others here are not going to engage you on it.

That valuable conversation is not going to happen because of comments like that. That moral outrage over the murder of this boy is just semantics.

I've seen you do this to yourself again and again, and it makes me really sad, because you have a lot of good things to contribute, but you always manage to undercut yourself.
I wish you wouldn't.
But, it is. Dude is 60 years old and already getting 60 mandatory years. Plus, he's going to have a second trial. Getting outraged pre-maturely is wasteful wankery at best. So, yes, it's semantics on this guy. Especially when everybody is making a mountain out if a molehill, considering that white-on-black murder cases constitutes 0.05% of all murder cases in the US. 0.05%. That's not an epidemic. Inflating cases and claiming them to be representative of a larger trend is irresponsible by the news media, and by liberals in general. 25 a year is not open season on blacks.

Even so, given there is going to be a second trial, there is less of a reason to be so outraged right now. There are more important things. Now, getting uptight about George Zimmerman, I can see. Though, I think his case was far more complicated than most people make out, he did get away with no jail time. So, I can see people getting pissed over that.

But the Dunn case is still just semantics right now. And that's all it will be until trial 2. People don't like to hear that, but it's truth. Asshole is already going to die in jail. But, people want more punishment, or "correct" punishment. Whatever. I can't care less. It's all distraction to keep us from talking about the real issues that oppress the black community.
Your comment was obtuse and reductive. It makes you appear to be not only lacking in empathy, but also in a fundamental understanding of how this murder, and this verdict, fits into the historic and systematic betrayal of African Americans by the justice system of this country.

Which is a real issue that oppresses the black community.

Dunn’s second trial will hopefully see him convicted for the murder he committed.
You feel his parents and the African American community should be satisfied with less than that. A murder conviction sends the message that Jordan Davis mattered. That his murder mattered. That is why it is not a distraction.

Again, as I’ve said, I agree that this is not the only social justice issue which needs to be addressed, but now all other posters will do is come in screaming and yelling at you, hurling invectives, and the opportunity to discuss the very important points you have raised will have been lost.
You are in effect, drowning yourself out. And that is disappointing.
@55, TheMisanthrope responded to a post linking Davis' killing by a white man to the "relentless slaughter of black children" by pointing out that there is no "relentless slaughter of black children" --not by white men at least. That is a pretty sensible point. If I found 1 case of lesbian rape, and used it to trumpet stopping the "relentless tide of sexual assault against women in our society," would you think I was making good sense?
@56: The Misanthrope and I are not in disagreement regarding the many other social justice issues effecting the black community and their impact on violence within that community.
@55 You're damned right it was reductive and obtuse. I was making a succinct point about how ridiculous I think this outrage is. Yes, it's an injustice, but everybody is being histrionic about it. When Anna, a white woman, calls it a relentless slaughter of black children, it makes her sound like a hysterical idiot. When Coates calls black-on-black crime "a lie," he sounds like a racist moron. When you say that the very real fact of black-on-black crime shouldn't be talked about because it will be used to support the SYG justifications, it makes you sound like you're following the bandwagon. When kk suggests that white-on-black crime is as prevalent and important as lynchings were, they sound like an asshole who has no historical knowledge or perspective.

And when I reduce your outrage by telling you that it's ineffectual, I sound like a polarizing asshole...but, when I make reasonable points, I get called too fucking stupid, and everybody else thinks I'm being a racist saying that black people can't help but be violent.

Have fun with this outrage. I hope it feels good. I hope that it is useful. Because I don't see a point in it. Not at this point. It's just a bunch of distraction.
@58: I didn’t say it shouldn’t talked about nor did claim that black on black crime did not exist. I said, that black on black crime was one issue and the killing of Jordan Davis was an example of another issue, and that the problem lay in that, and I quote,
“is that often people will use the statistics regarding the first issue to minimize the second.”

I said that I think we can be outraged and work against both problems and that is not a zero sum game.
I think that minimizing either issue does no service to the other.

I also agreed with you that to call black on black crime a lie was entirely inaccurate. I also agreed with you that institutionalized poverty, and ghettoization etc. are problems that are in no way being addressed enough, and are contributing factors to the problem of violence within the black community.

I don’t think you’re stupid and I don’t think you’re saying that you think black people can’t help but be violent, when you are making reasonable points.

Look, you're going to roll how you roll, and the way you do right now is going to make it hard out there for The Misanthrope. You need to decide what you want from your online interactions. Do you want people to engage with your ideas, or do you want to fight? Sometimes you might want to do one and sometimes you might want to do the other, which is cool. But it's up to you to pick, and to frame your discourse to achieve your goal.
Personally I'd like to see more of option A, but it's not my business. It's yours.

You ever heard of "deflecting the issue"?

Its when a person looks at one problem they may or may not contribute to, and finds those who suffer from that problem and directs them to something else that has nothing to do you said-problem.

"Dont worry about when I punched your wife in the mouth for lipping off to me, worry about all the other men who hit their wives...thats the REAL dare you attack me for punching your wife in the mouth when there are other men killing their wives for burning breakfast!"
For the record, WA is almost as bad as florida in every aspect racially.

The state supreme court has acknowledged how rampant racism is in jury selection and prosecution, and while it scolds attorneys for engages in it, it refuses to punish or limit acceptance of racially tainted verdicts or cases.

WA is a state where a judge held in favor of (white) female plaintiffs in a discrimination claim against Boeing based on the evidence of manager saying he wouldnt hire women, but the VERY same judge held against another plaintiff in an almost exactly similar case where the manager said he wouldnt hire n-words (he didnt say nword). The Former case included examples from 4 THOUSAND black boeing employees in WA, the latter included about 50 white female employees.

WA has its own stand your ground laws, and despite having one of the highest number of hate groups and hate crime members per capita in the US (thanx to Idaho kicking them out in the 90s), WA has no actual hate crime law. It has a malicious harassment law, which when used for race based crimes almost always gets reduced or tossed if the offender is white.

Worst, WA has one of the nations worst drug prosecution disparities in the nation. You have to be doing something SERIOUSLY wrong to beat Texas, Florida, California and New York out on this. Western WA is a state where the most popular illicit drugs are meth and heroine (used and sold by about 76% of drug offenders), but the most profiled and busted drug is crack, used by 4% of drug users. Guess what color they are?

WA can shake its finger at FL all it wants, but those in the know are aware its just as bad in most areas, and worst in a lot of other areas.

@60 Grammar, how does it work?

You're accusing me of something I freely say I'm doing. I'm attempting to change the topic from something useless to something useful.

Useless: the spectre of racism in the SYG laws based on allowance of white on black murder. Useful: the racial biases of the court system nationwide in order to incriminate more black crime than white crime.

Useless: saying there's a slaughter of black children by white people under the SYG laws. Useful: pointing out that societal pressures oppress the poor communities and that the majority of imprisoned criminals come from the lower classes, which are also disproportionately black.

Useless: saying black on black crime is a lie. Useful: pointing out that black culture glorifies the violent and materialistic culture that is destroying black youth.

Useless: Saying that Michael Dunn is representative of a larger trend of white murderers killing black kids. Useful: Pondering how to solve the gang problem in an effective way that also minimizes the criminalization of black youth.

Useless: Saying Michael Dunn got off scot-free for murder when he's going to be retried. Useful: Pointing out that Michael Dunn received 60 years for 3 second-degree murder attempts. More useful: Pointing out that a Florida black youth who left a bar during a brawl, got his gun, went back into the bar, fired into the crowd, and actually hit three people, only received 25 years. Most useful: Comparing both of these outcomes to the black woman who didn't aim at anybody or hit anybody but received 25 years.

Am I deflecting the issue? Fuck yes.

Also, regarding your post @61: CITATIONS NEEDED!!
@59 I'm not necessarily looking for fights. But, I find it hilarious that people are bitching about Jordan Davis isn't "counting as a person" (in Fnarf's words), while they're discounting that three other black teens counted as people for the other three counts of second-degree murder. But, because they weren't killed, neither they nor the justice served in their name, counts toward this guy.

Starting from the bottom, you asked for citations? Sure, but I expect a response afterward:……… - (Note, judge Pechman is the same judge that presided over the successful gender discrimination case. Shes also a judge knowing for wrist slapping defendants in race based discrimination cases, particularly those involving law enforcement)……

And the big one -…

As for your little useless/useful conceptualization : Your depiction of the problem is based on a false premise. The problem isnt white murderers praying on black youth, the problem is a justice system that ALLOWS white murderers to pray on black youth. A system that presumes all black males are dangerous criminals and to be treated as such. THAT is the problem. Work from there to get to the solution.

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.