Okay, we’ll take you off the list.
1 Like
I think you are being very generous here. After asking, “Is your name ‘White Supremacy’?” I think it is fair to assume that you are trying to point out in a comical way that an argument with white supremacy is not an argument with an individual white person. It is sufficient context to that someone should be able to read the next statement and understand the point you are getting at. The answer to your first question is clearly no, the answer to the second is assumed to be no as well.
You’ve got a real problem here. You say that it is hard not to take any claims of “white supremacy” personally but then you admit it’s real. What are we to do then, never mention it for fear of offending you?
Jews were widely considered America’s “Enemy Within” until Pearl Harbor day, which launched us into war with Germany (because it was Japan’s ally).
Right, which Brodkin fully explains in her book, and which is also why it was a post-WW II GI Bill that in effect welcomed Jewish Americans of European descent into the Great White Club.
Yeah, you missed some key words there: Being followed by a white person is no reason to feel threatened. Now if you are followed by a black person - well, watch out.
Stand Your Ground is always a factor in all cases of self-defence. The judge mentioned it in the jury instructions. In most jurisdictions if you are going to raise self defence you have to convince the jury that retreating was not a valid option. In Florida you do not. Even if you believe that Zimmerman’s defence team could have successfully argued that retreat was not an option, you can’t say that it is irrelevant to the case that they did not have to.
It’s a catch-22. Imagine you were a prosecutor in Florida and someone brought you this case. You’d know there is no way you can convict a white guy for killing a black guy with no witnesses, so your instinct is to save the time and money and not press charges. Of course that means that white guys have a licence to murder black guys - but the prosecutor behaving that way may actually just be trying to allocate resources to cases where a conviction is possible. So the racism becomes the justification for more racism.
Dammit! I thought that was going too be Sherman Hemsley debating the MAN!
Damn, thanks, that’s some good TV!
Reminds me of this –
3 Likes
That’s great, where is that from? Source?
Wish I could say it’s not staged –
Ugh, Snopes. Two pop-ups (unders? worked even on tablet) and a ton of totally obnoxious ads.
Sorry. No pop-ups in my Chrome browser…
Describing the race elements of the Florida issues like that isn’t really giving the whole picture. Looking at the cases, it does appear difficult to convict a white person of killing a black person with no witnesses. It also appears difficult, however, to convict a white person of killing a white person, a black person of killing a white or black person, or, in several cases where race clearly could not have been a factor in the killing itself, a person killing a threatening-looking shadow outside their window.
The primary evidence I’ve seen of racial bias is that black victims are less likely to result in convictions; I’ve not seen something similar for white suspects being more likely to go free. This is arguably worse than what you suggest, as it means that certain minorities simply aren’t being protected much from being murdered. All of the rather racist attempts by certain people to change the subject to “black on black” violence actually (inadvertently, no doubt) point toward the same issue: as a black victim in Florida, regardless of who kills you, it seems there’s a very good chance that your killer can go free by saying you were threatening.
The whole situation is absurd, though. Being white rather than black makes it so that your killer has a 59% rather than 73% chance of facing no penalty for killing you… that’s still terrible.
Pretty much every email I get from an extended family member is responded to with a Snopes link (to correct either gullibility or outright lies). If you’ve got a better source, I’d love to know.
I was going by other numbers I read:
The Urban Institute determined that in “stand your ground” states,
when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting
homicides are deemed justifiable. When black shooters kill white
victims only 3 percent of the deaths are ruled justifiable. (Salon)
The general stat that white people are acquitted more than black people is not inconsistent with the idea that there might be an even stronger bias when white people kill black people than vice versa.
Of course it does seem that those numbers from Florida are way higher than the Urban Institute study (that included multiple states). It just seems like it is really hard to convict anyone of a killing in Florida.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
