Well, I can’t say I’m unbiased. I’m a bigot, really, so I’m the wrong person to ask. But probably the bla…
…the black-clad, gun-toting, hotheaded patrolman.
Really, I don’t trust either of them, but those given authority by the state are to be judged more harshly, not less. Why is this surprising to people?
Because Martin Hyde believes blacks already understand that it’s not a crime to kill a white, Asian or Hispanic person who is trying to harm or kill another person, and that they need to extend the same understanding to cover black people. Are you really as illiterate as you make out, or is your apparent inability to understand why people use adjectives just a new way to be obnoxious?
The vast majority of black people are peaceful and lawful. All the statistics show this – any disparity in crime statistics still only involves a tiny fraction of all black people.
So it’s total bullshit to speak of “educating blacks”. Foolishness that is, unfortunately, still quite common.
It’s more of a class issue but if we had the courage to properly legalise drugs then I am convinced that violent crime numbers would fall dramatically.
Anyhoo, this case has rightfully gotten a lot of attention. Anytime a policeman kils someone it needs to get a lot of attention. There has been a huge amount of evidnece presented and it looks like a reasonable opinion was reached by those who had access to all the evidence.
It did, because blacks only seem to get mad when a white person uses legal self defense on a black person. Black people need to understand it’s not wrong, it’s not a civil rights violation, it’s not an indictment on white America, and it’s not a crime most importantly at all, when a black person is killed while assaulting a white person. If the black community should feel responsible at all (and I do not know why they would want to be, for a criminal) it should be a feeling of guilt that one of their own was violently trying to hurt a white person. Instead largely their first response is anger, denouncing “white America” and instantly assuming it was a murder with no evidence to support that assumption.
When you chop up the sentence it makes it hard to explain, imbecile. The sentence makes perfect grammatical sense in its original form. I simply said that it’s a false narrative to describe a system that mostly works as one that is failed. False narrative describes “failed criminal justice system”, “which mostly works” describes criminal justice system. You seem confused about the validity of describing something false and something true about the same noun in the same sentence. I’m not saying our system doesn’t have problems, as all CJ systems do, but the black narrative is that there’s never been a just court decision involving a black man. Other than I guess the OJ verdict.
You should understand that “black people” don’t need to be educated/lectured collectively on anything. The vast majority of black people are peaceful and lawful. You are engaging in collective responsibility and collective blame.
Complete and utter bullshit. Not surprised, though, that you think all black people should feel guilty for the crimes of unrelated other black people. Do you feel guilty about the crimes of people of your race?
God you’re full of shit. Where do you get this crap about the “black narrative”, Rush Limbaugh?
Oh my.
I only wish that I had the speed reading and comprehension abilities of the protesters and the posters here, who clearly went through the actual evidence presented to the grand jury before deciding that justice was not done in this case.
He said they shouldn’t feel anything, but if they chose to feel something it should be guilt. You really suck at reading today, don’t you?
So Wilson owed it to society to be killed for the sake of racial equality.
Gotcha.
That’s not what he said.
[QUOTE=iiandiiii]
That’s not what he said.
[/QUOTE]
No, but it does accurately reflect the thrust of it. The question is whether, to paraphrase you, that you think all black people should feel anything for the crimes of unrelated other black people. If you agree that they should, then what they feel can be analyzed and deemed good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, etc.
Either way, Martin Hyde’s comment is a straw man. Clearly the issue in the case of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown is that certain people don’t believe that the victims committed assault, or that the use of deadly force was a proportionate response to whatever assault did occur. It’s uncharitable in the extreme to accuse “blacks” of moral illiteracy in being incapable of understanding justifiable self-defense.
Every person should feel sadness and/or anger (but not guilt) when another person of any category commits a crime. The race is irrelevant. Black people should feel no different (in terms of guilt, sadness, or anger) about the crimes committed by black people than they do about the crimes committed by white people. No one should feel any guilt for the crimes of others unless they are involved somehow. Being part of the same racial or ethnic group doesn’t meet this criteria.
I say educate everyone! Our education system has become something of a political football and suffers for it.
As for ‘higher rate of criminality’, I suppose you missed Rand Paul on Real Time on Friday bemoaning the fact that 3/4 of our drug convictions are against black and brown people while they don’t do drugs at a higher rate. Or the recent USA Today article pointing out that Ferguson actually has a much lower rate of racially disparate arrests compared to the national average- basically pointing out that the justice system as a whole in this country is racist.
Other than that, yeah, them blacks…
How about “aggrieved”. can they feel aggrieved? Surely they can, because they tell us they are. And if one has the empathy to feel aggrieved because they are part of a group, why should one not feel a degree of guilt when people in their group act collectively? No “guilt”, and shame are just as appropriate e,options as sadness and anger.
That sounds like a variation on sadness and anger.
Huh? In what way have “people in their group” acted “collectively”? This sounds like a tautological assignation of collective responsibility.
Guilt and shame are not at all appropriate, in my view, for the crimes of total strangers. A father might feel guilt if his son committed a crime, but that’s much different than a black person feeling guilty because another unrelated black person committed a crime. And it’s wrong to say that black people should feel guilt or shame in any way whatsoever for the crimes of others.
Keep this in mind – if you’re saying black people should feel guilty or ashamed because of the crimes of unrelated people, you’re saying members of my family who have done nothing wrong and have never hurt anyone should feel guilt and shame. I’m sure you can imagine how you’d feel if I said your family should feel guilty and ashamed when they’ve done nothing wrong.
What possible need would anyone have for that?
Absolutely, I fully agree there. But by the same token, black people should feel no different when a black person is the victim of a crime than if a white person is, but you’ve been arguing that it’s fine when they do. Which is blatantly hypocritical.
I’m saying that if one can feel sadness and anger, and feel aggrieved, then it it is also, appropriate for one to feel, when the conduct calls for it, ashamed, embarrassed, guilty. And by aggrieved I mean that one feel personally the injustice that happens to another.