Obama, Trayvon Martin, Biases and Kansas City Burning

In Kansas City, Missouri, a 13-year-old East High School student was walking home after the end of his daily classes when he was grabbed by two older teens just as he reached his front porch. They pinned his arms behind his back,  poured gasoline on him, and set him on fire. The victim of the attack was rushed to an emergency room, where he was treated and released. Doctors fear possible damage to his lungs and eyes, but outside of losing his eyebrows and some hair, he only suffered first degree burns.

The boy is white; his attackers were black. They allegedly said, as they were lighting him aflame, “You get what you deserve, white boy.”

This frightening incident occurred on March 2. I only recently learned of it, because the news media didn’t treat it as a national story. Though the boy’s attackers have not been found, no activists are demanding that the police chief resign. There have been no marches or protests, and students aren’t walking out of Kansas City schools. Nobody, as far as I can determine, has claimed that this is just the tip of a lurking race iceberg, and that it shows the racial hate of blacks toward whites that is hidden by the media and the culture. Most of all, the President of the United States did not say , just to give a wild, hypothetical example…

“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

“So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

“But my main message is to the parents of this young man.  And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Now, a lot of conservative bloggers and other commentators are asking why the Kansas City incident has been pigeon-holed as a local news story of no great significance, while the story of Trayvon Martin’s shooting by a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain is the subject of editorials, essays, debates and blog posts, and has become a political controversy. (It would be nice, as well as helpful, if some prominent non-conservatives had the integrity, courage and the objectivity to ask the same questions. It would also be nice if i-Pads grew on trees.) There are obvious differences in the two stories that could be part of the answer: the Kansas City boy didn’t die, and wasn’t even seriously injured; guns weren’t involved; there was no 911 call to play, and the episode raised no questions about the role of a dangerously broad Florida law that has national advocates. Still, the victim in Kansas City was a child; the fact that he wasn’t killed is just luck, no arrest has been made, and while it is still undetermined whether Martin’s death was a hate crime (or even a crime at all), the Missouri attack certainly looks like one. (I could raise my favorite issue of why setting a child on fire for other reasons makes the act less despicable than doing it because of his race, but never mind.) I think the disparity between the prominence and national impact of the two stories cannot be justified by the facts of the two cases alone.

It is, I am quite sure,partially  explained by confirmation bias…by the media, by politicians, and by civil rights activists. They believe, not without evidence, that innocent black men are endangered because of racial fears and bias (and the media also doesn’t like guns), so they interpreted the Martin tragedy as a story with larger social and political significance. For similar reasons, probably subconsciously (but you never know), they chose not to pay attention to the Kansas City burning, because they feared that it would exacerbate those fears and biases, and because, thanks to confirmation bias, they really believe that a black-on-white hate crime is just an aberration, with no larger significance at all. And it might be, though without talking about it, investigating it, and “taking it with the seriousness it deserves,” we’ll never find out, will we?

Of course, George Zimmerman, who shot Martin, could also be an aberration. His act, however, also advances the political agenda of many of the people reporting, publicizing, condemning and protesting the incident. What happened in Kansas City does not.

I don’t usually like playing this game, but the suspicion is a reasonable one that if the Kansas City boy had been black and his assailants white, this would have been a national story. I also suspect that if the Kansas City attack had occurred after Martin’s death was widely reported (Martin was actually killed about a week before the burning, but the media didn’t latch on to it for a couple weeks) the media would have had to report it differently.

Nonetheless, I would probably make the call that the Florida story holds more national significance than the burned student if I were a news editor. The fact that the death seems to have arisen out of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law tips the scales. The problem is that while the differences are not so great in the abstract, that simple choice—one story is headline stuff, the other, purely local—causes the two episodes to have national impact grossly disproportionate to the actual difference in their facts and news value. The public is bombarded with words and thoughts about one, and doesn’t learn about the other at all. Now hindsight bias comes into play. Conservatives discover the earlier story, and challenge the decision not to publicize it as media bias, given how the Martin shooting was treated. That’s unfair, but it doesn’t seem unfair—not when commentators are pointing to Martin’s death as symptomatic of a national problem. “So black kids target an innocent white kid for burning, and that’s nothing, but a kid in a hoodie shot by a hysterical Hispanic with a gun becomes the new Emmett Till?

There are many more stories on the web comparing Martin to Till than there are stories about any aspect of the Kansas City incident. That’s unconscionable, exploitive, irresponsible, and misleading.

Then, from sufficient reasons to make one story a subject of national coverage and treat the other as local, the featured story takes on wildly inflated significance–before it is even determined exactly what happened in Florida. This sucks in our ever-eager-to-be-sucked-in President whose statement, read in the context of the Kansas City story that he may not even know about, gives ammunition to those with questionable motives, but also those with legitimate ones. So people are asking:

“Why is Obama concerned for the black parents of slain son in what may not be a racial incident, but not concerned for  parents of a burned child, in what definitely was a racial incident? Why is the Justice Department investigating one and not the other? Is it because the victim in Florida looked like Obama, or could have been his son, while the attackers in Kansas City might have looked like him, and the victim couldn’t have been his son? Why is he putting pressure on Florida law enforcement officials to make an arrest, when even more time has gone by in the Kansas City incident, and there have been no arrests either? Does Obama think that arresting white attackers should be a higher priority than arresting black ones? Why? I thought this man had promised to be President of all the people, and be equally dedicated to all children, all parents, and all races?

Some—though not all—of these questions are unfair, and I sympathize with the dilemma faced by our first African-American President whenever a national controversy arises over race. He quite literally can’t win: black activists will take his silence as a betrayal to his most loyal supporters, yet if he makes the kind of comment, admittedly restrained, that he did this week, opponents will accuse him of aggravating racial tensions and failing his own standard of objectivity. Yes, I sympathize…but he has the job he sought and won, and its up to him to navigate its complexities.

That is a primary reason why it is foolish and irresponsible for him to comment on on such events in general, and the Trayvon Martin shooting in particular.

34 Comments

Filed under Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Leadership, Race, U.S. Society

34 responses to “Obama, Trayvon Martin, Biases and Kansas City Burning

  1. I doubt that it’s so much a matter of racism on Obama’s part as it is one of political viability. The trouble with that, however, is that by playing up to the hysteria that IS being promulgated by race-baiters of the worst stripe (who are also his supporters), he further degrades the process of justice… which is not supposed to be swayed by sentiment or political machinations. Well… they will be NOW- and Obama has contributed to it, putting himself in with the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and the usual “reverends” who stand to gain from the “us vs. them” lynch mob mentality.

    But there’s another aspect to this. Not only is Zimmerman a gun carrying Anglo/Hispanic from the important electorial state of Florida. He may just be innocent! A witness has corroborated his firing in self defense while being beated by Martin. The worth of that testimony would, in normal cases, be determined in court.

    But does all that even matter, now? Did it ever, as the incident is apparently what’s needed to keep the Republicans form winning in November via Florida. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, in the words of Chicago’s current mayor- who didn’t! Guilty or not, Zimmerman is in hiding for his life while crazed mobs call for his head. Not, mind you, a fair trial and speedy justice. In their minds, the verdict is already rendered… and on the twin altars of race hate and political expediency.

    • But there’s another aspect to this. Not only is Zimmerman a gun carrying Anglo/Hispanic from the important electorial state of Florida. He may just be innocent! A witness has corroborated his firing in self defense while being beated by Martin. The worth of that testimony would, in normal cases, be determined in court.

      There is also other evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and pursued Martin. That would belie a claim of self-defense in most cases.

      In another post on this subject, I asked how Zimmerman would have been treated had he been a cop. Now I ask how he would be treated if he had shot a cop under the exact circumstances that he shot Martin.

      Initiate a confrontation with a cop, pursue a cop, receive a beating, and shoot a cop. What would be the result?

      • The bottom line- and what I was getting at- is a fair trial. The only way to get a clear picture is not through claims, alleged witnesses and media speculation. Certainly not from political groups with an axe to grind. As I said, Zimmerman might be innocent. Based on what’s known, a plausible scenario could still be envoked. But so could one in the opposite direction. The problem is that, even if a fair trial is held and with all the evidence presented, would any jurors have the courage to acquit him were he to be proved innocent? After all the threats and denunciations? And particularly if a juror was black himself? Regardless if it where an honest verdict, such a black juror would likely be in greater jeopardy than Zimmerman. Frankly, I don’t know how he can get a fair trial at all, now that Obama himself has tied himself to it politically.

  2. Ethics Alarm? Jack, a Ethic Klaxon should sound whenever either of these race-baiting scoundrels open their mouths. Jesse (“HymieTown” and shakedown master) Jackson and Al (“Diamond Merchants” and convicted libeler) Sharpton are a disgrace and all they accomplish is worsening relations between the two groups by their Race-Selective media attentions (which, when exhibited by the Melanin-deficient to favor others of their own kind is instantly labeled “Racism” by the Morally Superior Media).

    Where were these two buffoons (and the Empty Suit Known As Our Current POTUS) when the black flash mobs of last year were targeting mostly white citizens? Where was their concern for justice when four black thugs in Kentucky kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered two white college students. Or how about in Tulsa, when a similar outrage occurred? Where were the cries for Hate Crime prosecution?

    Surely the alleged Reverends know that each time they label a crime (key word: CRIME) committed by a “white” person against a “black” person as a Hate Crime simply because of the race of the perp and the victim, without issuing similar demands when the perp is Black and the victim is White; surely they know by doing this they are, in fact, losing the support of people of good will of all races who simply want justice and safety for all.

    All three of them are a disgrace.

    • Do I have your permission to use “Ethics Klaxon”? I really like it.

    • Michael Ejercito

      Where were these two buffoons (and the Empty Suit Known As Our Current POTUS) when the black flash mobs of last year were targeting mostly white citizens? Where was their concern for justice when four black thugs in Kentucky kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered two white college students. Or how about in Tulsa, when a similar outrage occurred? Where were the cries for Hate Crime prosecution?

      Ironically, the same place white nationalist groups were found, which was nowhere near the victims.

      White nationalist groups often like to complain about black-on-white crime on their articles and blogs. But they never give any anecdotes of how they helped the victims of such crimes. They never write anything about the rape crisis centers they operate for white female victims of rape by black males. Could it be that they really do not care about such crimes, only writing about them to stoke their base?

  3. oldgraymary

    First let me say that I am sorry that this poor kid is dead. And I would bet if Zimmerman could relive those few minutes of his life that he would choose a different outcome.

    Having said that, I can’t imagine why the president sees fit to inject himself into a single incident such as this when, there were fifty(!) shootings last weekend in his “hometown.” Of those, ten died, including a 10-year-old girl sitting on her front stoop with her mother. No outrage, no outcry. The shootings in Chicago have become “oh by the way” moments.

    I also wondered why the KC incident got no coverage, but then it occurred to me that black crime has always been largely ignored or downplayed by the media. There was no outrage five years ago when Shannon Christian and Christopher Newsome died in the most horrible ways at the hands of their black killers, which was not categorized as a hate crime, and according to (former?) DOJ employees Christopher Coates and Christian Adams that now seems to be official policy.

    Justice, like free speech and everything else we’ve taken for granted in this country is now okay for me, but no more for thee.

    • Michael Ejercito

      I also wondered why the KC incident got no coverage, but then it occurred to me that black crime has always been largely ignored or downplayed by the media. There was no outrage five years ago when Shannon Christian and Christopher Newsome died in the most horrible ways at the hands of their black killers, which was not categorized as a hate crime, and according to (former?) DOJ employees Christopher Coates and Christian Adams that now seems to be official policy.

      Excellent point.

      The next time someone brings up Trayvon Martin, we bring up Channon Christian.

  4. fattymoon

    Let’s broaden this a bit, shall we? My wife and I, AKA Bernstein and Woodward, have a totally different angle, one we are pursuing via the Occupy movement. Allow me to quote from Wikipedia (it’s OK, it won’t bite)…

    “Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called “shoot first” laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[30][31] The law’s critics argue that Florida’s law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[31] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that “[w]hether it’s trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn’t want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you’re encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn’t be used.”[32][33]””

    Guess who was responsible for the stand your ground law or variations of in some 31 states? ALEC, by crackey! What, you don’t know who or what ALEC is, Allow me to pass that one on to my friend and sometimes adversary, Jack.

    I rest my case. For now.

    • Michael Ejercito

      The law’s critics argue that Florida’s law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed.

      That is what we have with police shootings, even in jurisdictions without stand-your-ground laws.

      • Police are trained professionals in the field of law enforcement. That’s a material distinction.

        • Michael Ejercito

          Police are trained professionals in the field of law enforcement.

          If only they always acted professionally.

          I have no law enforcement training, and yet somehow I managed to avoid shooting people while breaking into homes sans warrant to look for drugs.

          • That’s really no argument, you know. It’s a difficult job, and every error and mistake of judgment is magnified by the nature of the work. It hardly means that every John Wayne wannabe with a chip on his shoulder should be trusted to shoot first and ask questions later.

            • It’s a difficult job, and every error and mistake of judgment is magnified by the nature of the work.

              How difficult is it to not break into a home to look for drugs sans warrant?

              • In hot pursuit cases, warrants aren’t necessary. The situation you describe doesn’t happen much…more common is a warrant issued on the wrong house.

                • Bill

                  Or the police just make a simple mistake like they did with my brother Hugh.

                  My brother called the police late at night to report an altercation in the apartment next door and in the stairway of his apartment building. About 10-15 minutes later he heards a loud knocking at his door, looked through the peep hole saw a bunch of cops and answered the door. Upon which they promptly ordered to the floor and handcuffed him. When he pointed out that he was was the person that called and they wanted to be next door they checked it out and let him go.

                  And everyone did the right thing. They apologized and he accepted it and that was the end of it.

  5. Two points:

    First, there’s a significant difference between the two cases that wasn’t mentioned. We know who did the Florida shooting; we don’t know who the perpetrators were in the Kansas City case. In other words, the lack of arrest in one case is a choice; in the other, it’s a necessity. For the “getting away with murder” trope to work, we need to know who did so, to literally put a face on the crime. Cases go unsolved not infrequently, even with good police work.

    But everything about Zimmerman seems wrong: there’s a history of over-zealousness (to be polite), he was told by the 911 operator not to follow Martin, he chased after the boy and tried to claim he was merely “standing his ground,” etc. Maybe there’s a good reason he hasn’t been arrested (I doubt it, but it’s possible)—in which case it would be a really good idea to tell us (in general terms, at least) what that reason is: there’s a reliable witness who confirms his story, or there’s a tape of a phone conversation we haven’t heard, or whatever. But, barring exculpatory evidence, the police look corrupt, racist, and/or incompetent in not arresting Zimmerman. There sure seems to be enough for an arrest and an indictment, at the very least.

    Secondly, irrespective of the racial angle—which I was initially prepared to downplay, but now strongly suspect was indeed a motive—this case deals with two elements that have potential national significance: the whole question of armed (and untrained) neighborhood watches, and that remarkably problematic “stand your ground” law. There’s a cartoon going around the web of a black man holding a smoking gun and a white man lying dead on the ground. The black man explains to the cop on the scene, “I had a reasonable fear the neighborhood watch guy following me was going to fear for his life and shoot… so I shot him first.” The cop responds, “Makes sense to me.” It certainly makes as much sense as Zimmerman’s story.

    Ultimately, I think the Zimmerman/Martin case should get every bit as much publicity as it’s getting: it sure seems, based on what we know, that it’s police reluctance to make an arrest rather than lack of evidence that leaves Zimmerman at large (and no, I don’t agree with publicizing his address or similar tactics). As for the Kansas City case: based on what I know right now, I’d call it a local story. Of course, the fact that it’s a local story may contribute to my relative ignorance. ‘Tis a conundrum.

    • ‘Tis. ‘Specially since the Florida story was treated as local until the black press kept it alive.

      The problems with your otherwise excellent analysis is 1) as bad as the SYG law is, it IS the law, and it’s quite possible that under the law, there’s nothing to prosecute Zimmerman for. At this stage, second-guessing the decision not to arrest (or calling it racist) is premature. The wording of the law may preclude arrest. It is not unusual for the police to know who a prime suspect is and to wait until they have the case lined up before making an arrest. It can take months.The drum-beating encourages bad law enforcement work, and also increases the likelihood of a botched prosecution; and 2) the race angle. If the KC burning was a hate crime, as seems likely, Obama’s “soul-searching” and “looks like me” rhetoric seems awfully selective applied to what may well be not a hate crime but a race-fear crime.

      If he’d keep his opinions to himself, these issues wouldn’t arise.

  6. urbanregor

    A President, or Presidential candidate speaking on an issue of national significance, regardless of who kept the story alive is hardly new. Had the President interjected his opinion before the story made national news, as it seems you’d be OK with if it was the KC burning case, your argument might have some merit. The fact that this case is now national news is the only reason for the President to weigh in.

    Now before we even get to whether this is a hate crime or not, let’s just deal with the fact that a legitimate investigation didn’t get underway until the story made national news. That is what made the “black press” keep the story alive. The lack of justice, and the perception (one that could be wrong) that nothing was being done, is what got people riled up. I admit, I’m having a hard time accepting that a 250lb armed man was so fearful of losing his life to a 140lb kid that he felt the need to shoot him in self defense. Sounds like bullshit to me. But I can wait for a full investigation. Just sorry it’s taking so long to get underway. And remember, the LA riots were not after the taped beating was shown, but after the criminal justice system tried to convince us that we didn’t really see what we all saw.

    • If you think I’d be OK with Obama speaking out about either case, you didn’t read the post very carefully, OR the previous piece on his comments, OR any of the four or five articles I wrote here on other occasions that Obama stuck in his oar where it didn’t belong. Not that I could write about all of them, or I’d have to change the name of the blog.

      A President doing this may be “hardly new,”—especially for this one, who does it all the time—but “hardly new” doesn’t mean “right” or “responsible” or “appropriate” or “smart.” National means “affecting the nation” not “covered by the national media”, or Kim Kardashian’s divorce would qualify, and even a national issue, when it is firmly in the purview of local officials, is something that a President’s interference constitutes an abuse of power.

      Even the most reckless Presidents haven’t crossed this line more than a time or two in their 4 or 8 years, but Obama is nearing double figures after 3. The reason: arrogance, lack of discipline, an uncritical press, an apparent Messianic complex, disrespect for federalism and the separation of powers, and a better understanding of what a community organizer does than responsible presidential leadership.

      • urbanregor

        I agree. National means affecting the nation. This is absolutely something that affects the nation. And not just because of the racial element, but because of the law and order aspect, and the role of newly minted gun laws. While I also agree that a President should not feel the need to comment on every news story or issue, this President is presiding in a heightened media age, and must adapt without a steady stream of “no comments”. Additionally, Obama didn’t comment until the Justice Department had weighed in, and even then, he spoke personally to the parents, and urged a full investigation, and a desire that we all should have, to find the truth. These don’t seem provocative, or out of line to me. I’m wondering if you feel the same way about the republican candidates weighing in. Or the fact that they only weighed in afterwards. or in most instances said about the same thing as the President, minus the personal sentiment.

        • This is absolutely something that affects the nation. And not just because of the racial element, but because of the law and order aspect, and the role of newly minted gun laws.

          How does it affect people in California?

  7. fattymoon

    Okie dokie kids… since Jack didn’t address the ALEC connection, allow me. (Do we really want the National Rifle Association to be drafting our nation’s gun laws? Isn’t that like the fox in the henhouse?) Here’s a link to the following text – http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/stand_your_ground_legislation_that_may_have_let_tr.php
    ——————————————————————
    RYAN J. REILLY MARCH 22, 2012, 6:00 AM 12235 155
    Trayvon Martin was just 10 years old when politicians in Florida passed legislation that, seven years later, is being blamed for letting his killer walk free.

    Martin’s Feb. 26 death in a gated suburban neighborhood at the hands of a 28-year-old man is calling attention to Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force if a person feels threatened. Gunman George Zimmerman was pursuing Martin because he thought the 17-year-old African-American teenager was suspicious and told police he was acting in self defense, though Martin had only a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea on him when he was shot and killed a short distance from the home of his father’s girlfriend.

    Florida was the first state in the country to pass such a bill, but they weren’t the last. And like many legislative trends, this one has its roots in the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

    Minutes documenting a 2005 meeting from an old ALEC website provided to TPM by the Center for Media and Democracy and Common Cause show that Marion Hammer of the National Rifle Association (NRA) pitched model legislation to ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Force. An old NRA update also documented the meeting. “Her talk was well-received, and the task force subsequently adopted the measure unanimously,” the NRA wrote in an Aug. 12, 2005 post on the NRA website.

    As Matt Gertz writes over at Media Matters, Florida’s law is “virtually identical” to the so-called “Castle Doctrine Act” proposed by ALEC and the NRA’s suggestion.

    Opponents of the legislation are pointing out how easily it could be abused.

    “All you have to say is that you reasonably believed you were threatened, and the only person who can dispute that is the person you have just killed,” says Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But as this chart from Mother Jones illustrates, “Stand Your Ground” bills have already spread across the country.

    Sponsors of Florida’s bill, meanwhile, are claiming it shouldn’t come into play in the Martin case.

    “They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” former Sen. Durell Peaden told the Miami Herald. “He has no protection under my law.”

    • frank

      Let the Justice – court system try this case IF it has any merit, you racist! Stop listening to Jackson, Sharpton, Obama and the racist-loving media. IF there is any cause for prosecution according to the LAW, then let the LAW do its job!

  8. justiceseeker

    First of all, Trayvon’s parents were VERY proactive in getting their son’s murder into the spotlight. They went to Change.org and asked for help in getting word out about what happened and demanding justice. I don’t see that with the child in K.C. If that child’s parent(s) were to step up to the plate and demand justice as Trayvon’s family did, maybe the nation would become aware of the situation. I never heard about Trayvon until I received notice of the situation from Change.org. Maybe as parents we ALL need to be more proactive when it comes to justice for our children when they are mistreated in a criminal way and nothing is done about it on a legal level. I don’t for a minute believe that this is a racial issue with Trayvon, but an issue about a man who decided on his own that he was going to be a “hero” and take care of something that he perceived in his own mind as a “situation”. As for the white kid being attacked by black kids, justice needs to be demanded by someone. Why isn’t anyone stepping up and doing this on a national level like the Martin family?

  9. Dwayne N. Zechman

    …and I sympathize with the dilemma faced by our first African-American President whenever a national controversy arises over race.

    I do not sympathize for one simple reason: “first African-American President” was important and relevant on January 20, 2009, for exactly ONE DAY. On January 21, 2009, it was high time to get on with being the President of the United States of America, full stop.

    I don’t give two [insert expletive here]s what his race is, and I would not, DID not vote for or against him on that basis. He needs to realize that he’s my President, too. He’s the President of every single U.S. citizen, and every time he weighs in on these matters of race, he makes it appear that he thinks differently.

    –Dwayne

  10. Steve

    It’s fairly obvious that liberal Amerika (sic) is racially predjudiced, as it fits their desired mold and path to more control of individuals. Logic and cogent debate are not parts of the lexicon of the leftists. Only now after three plus years of tyranny are some people realizing that we are in a civil war that is more divisive than the one on the 1860s. As long as history is mentioned, please revisit the Roman Empire if you want to see a great civilization corrode, crumble and succumb to entropy.

  11. Nick

    Where is the uproar from the black community when black on black violence (all too often) occurs? The frequency of this type of violence rarely triggers the type of reaction that the case in Florida triggered. This disparity of reaction rakes open the same kinds of wounds that are inflicted by past events such as, say, when African-Americans celebrated because a fellow high profile African-American was found innocent of murdering two white victims. There is a serious lack of dialogue among the races, but more to the point, there is a (perceived and actual) lack of seriousness and focus among the African-American leadership in this country. Ouch! The reactions to my posting are going to sting! I just want us all to “get along,” but I can do without the hypocrisy. The honest response should be “Ouch, but this hits home and upon reflection, we as members of the black leadership need to do better.”

  12. As a 38 year resident of Kansas City, it sickened me to hear about this incident from your post, Jack. KC is a lovely town, but it is the classic urban sprawl Donut. Now the Hip whites are gentrifying the donut hole and the poor black families are being forced out to a certain degree.

    As a “Border State”, Missouri ( and the rest of the US ) has its Racist undertones, to different degrees throughout the state – but the Urban areas seem to be a bit more tolerant and accepting than the rural. But this reverse racism is very troubling. I really can only lay the blame at the feet of the leaders and politicians of our country, who have purposely tried to dumb us down.

    Kids under 5 do not exhibit any racist traits… it’s all taught. Either way, these teachers who supposedly have been stoking the flames of this attitude , no matter what color the skin of the children, should be punished severely.

    I don’t think you can compare the 2 events tho, although I see your point. Zimmerman and the 2 kids that assaulted the young man in KC both have learned prejudices. However, Zimmerman’s daddy is a retired judge who has a ton of clout in Florida, much more than the average citizen.

    I think these prejudices are kept alive by the powers that be to keep the people at each other’s throats instead of mad at who really run the world, as I always say. To quote GCarlin: ‘…Obedient Workers – just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, but not enough to Critically Think for Themselves and know that they’re being screwed by a system that threw them overboard 30+ years ago (Reagan)…’

    It does make me happy that this is seemingly yet again calling attention to the fact that we are all the same – ‘people are the same everywhere’ says Morrissey, and I’m glad that instead of being buried, these stories are having the light of day shined on them via activism and social media. hopefully it will help educate all of us towards a more perfect union, blah blah etc.

  13. Another shooting incident .

    Will the Left pay as much attention to this one?

  14. JOSEPH FRANCIS PALINKAS IV

    How is it that black crimes against white people are quiet and unheard of, but as soon as a white person does something to a black person it’s NATIONAL NEWS?

    • A different but related question: how is it that when blue-eyed, blond teenage girls disappear, it’s national news, but when black teens vanish, it is barely covered in the local media?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s