The word “thug” describes violence. Playing loud music can’t be reasonably described as “thuggery” (not that you’ve even established that Davis was “deliberately anti-social”).
The little dead shit, you mean? The little 17 year old shit who was shot dead? The little dead shit whose parents mourn him? That little shit?
Calling a dead black kid who committed zero violent acts “thug” and “little shit” for doing, at worst, an incredibly mundane and common teenage thing that’s not violent in any way, speaks very poorly of you. It’s an implicit justification of his death. No, he didn’t deserve to die. At worst, he deserved a stern talking-to. If you don’t want people to think you don’t care about the unjust deaths of black people, then it would be advisable not to call dead black children who committed no violence whatsoever “thugs” and “little shits”.
We are discussing two people; one of them flat out murdered an unarmed, defenseless child, was convicted of murder, and sent to prison for life. His behavior was so obscene his own girlfriend testified against him. His ex-wives said he was violent and abusive toward them.
The other played his music too loud.
Guess whose behavior offends Steophan more? Guess which one Steophan calls a thug? Guess which one Steophan thinks shouldn’t have been convicted?
Hint: the kid playing his music too loud is black. The murderer is white.
This isn’t fair. I’ve no doubt that if it had been a Kia filled with teenage white girls blasting Lady Gaga*, one of whom met the request to turn the volume down with a “yeah, like, F you, rando? Okay? Whatever!” Steophan would also characterize that girl as a dangerous thug who deserved to die.
I have no idea what teenage girls listen to or how they talk nowadays, so please just work with me here.
The white guy who randomly punched me in the face a few years back, after (according to the police) doing it to someone else a few minutes before? Thug.
White guy I was unfortunate enough to share a house with a couple of years ago, who had the police round repeatedly for stealing and drugs related things, stole from me and the other housemates, beat his girlfriend and (yes) played shit music loudly at inappropriate times? Thug.
In general, anyone (although as I’ve just admitted, mainly male) who commits low level antisocial crimes that reduce the quality of life of people nearby. It has nothing to do with race.
So for a white person, they need to commit an actual crime to be considered a thug? Last I checked listening to music in your car, even loudly, is not a crime. So what qualifies Davis as a thug in light of the fact that he committed no crime, low-level or otherwise? The fact that he didn’t immediately submit to the authority of Dunn when he demanded the music be changed? Is not following the orders of the older white man a ‘low level antisocial crime’? If so, what is the exact charge that he could have been prosecuted for? You’ve now set the bar for ‘thug’ using the term crime, so please explain what Davis’ crime was in this case?
Why did you single out Davis, who is dead, and committed no violent action, as a thug? Is Dunn a thug? At the very least you’ve admitted that he’s guilty of attempted murder due to shooting at the fleeing kids.
Is there something about Davis that made you more likely to call him a thug, and something about Dunn that made you not call him a thug?
Do you think it’s curious at all, in any way, that in an encounter in which a kid played loud music and was shot dead, and his killer also shot multiple times at the other kids fleeing in the car, the only one you called a thug was the dead kid?
Was it in this place? Can you please cite the law for this location that describes loud music in your car as a crime? Please be specific. You are asserting that this person is a criminal, you should be able to back that allegation up.
LOL. Then why did you hold back? Why did you have a ready dehumanizing label for the dead kid who played loud music, but you had no such dehumanizing label for his killer who also shot at fleeing kids?
Do you think there’s the slightest, non-zero chance that maybe you are unconsciously a bit more likely to call a black teenage male a “thug” than a middle aged white male? Just the tiniest, tiniest possibility? It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
And if it might be true, and you admit it, then you might just have identified a chance to improve yourself. Only if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
What? So Dunn goes way beyond thuggery to attempted murder, but he should be walking free today according to you? I find your views baffling to say the least.
No, I don’t think he should be walking free, I think the convictions for attempted murder should stand. As a matter of principle, I think he should not be convicted of murder - as indeed, he wasn’t at the original trial.
He also wasn’t found not guilty – it was a hung jury. That means a retrial, and at the retrial, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You say that what Dunn did goes beyond thuggery – so why did you hold back for him? Why did you have a ready dehumanizing label for the dead kid who played loud music, but you had no such dehumanizing label for his killer who also shot at fleeing kids?
No, I’m OK with the actual justified self defence, but the follow-on attempted murder was just beyond the pale. You know, convicting people for the crimes they actually commit.