MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – School officials at the University of Minnesota are working with black student and facility organizations after they wrote a letter to the school’s president about the racial descriptions given in crime alerts.
The letter, sent on Dec. 6, 2013, was issued by members of the African American and African Studies, Black Faculty and Staff Association, Black Graduate and Professional Student Association, Black Men’s Forum, Black Student Union and Huntley House for African American Males.
It was directed to University President Eric Kaler and Pamela Wheelock, the vice president of University Services.
Students and staff mailed the letter more than a month after the campus went on lockdown because of an attempted robbery at Anderson Hall on Nov. 11, 2013. University of Minnesota Police wrongfully identified a student as the suspect.
On Tuesday, school officials reported there have been 25 robberies in and around the University, an increase of 27 percent over the last few years.
The organizations wrote that while campus safety is crucial, the profiling can be devastating for black male students.
“[We] unanimously agree that campus safety should be of the UMPD’s utmost importance; however, efforts to reduce crime should never be at the expense of our Black men, or any specific group of people likely to be targeted. In addition to causing Black men to feel unsafe and distrusted, racial profiling is proven to inflict negative psychological effects on its victims.”
At Wednesday’s forum, Ian Taylor Jr., president of the Black Men’s Forum, said members of his organization feel threatened when the use of a racial description is given in the crime alerts.
“The repeated black, black, black suspect,” Taylor said. “And what that does it really discomforts the mental and physical comfort for students on campus because they feel like suspicions begin to increase.”
Welcome to what the absurdity of political correctness hath wrought, and how the “culture of victimhood” – as perpetuated by opportunistic liberals – plays out in real time. We must provide LESS information about a suspected criminal to students and the police because we don’t want to cause anyone “discomfort”! Sure, let’s put lives at risk so we don’t offend anyone. Can you believe this garbage? This level of PC “sensitivity” can and probably has gotten people hurt and/or killed. You give EVERY BIT OF DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION YOU CAN when a suspect is on the loose so he or she can be reported, caught, and hauled in for questioning. Eliminating crucial information about his or her physical description can prove to be a devastating hindrance to law enforcement – and compromise the safety of students, faculty, and others.
Fortunately, the university agrees and has pushed back – for now:
On Jan. 27, 2014, a formal letter was issued by Wheelock.
“I firmly believe that a well-informed community is an asset to public safety…I believe that sharing more information in our Crime Alerts, not less, is most beneficial in terms of public safety, especially when that information is available.
The information we share can include a complete description of suspects, unique identifying characteristics such as an accent or a distinctive piece of clothing, or the description of vehicles involved.
We have reviewed what other Big Ten Universities and local colleges and universities include, and our practice of including the race of a suspect when it is available from a victim’s description is consistent with their practices.”
The Daily Caller provides an interesting side note to all of this:
If the university did put an end to its practice of considering race in crime alerts, it would be an ironic exception to campus policy. UM practices affirmative action, and considers an applicant’s race when deciding whether to admit.
The Daily Caller reached out to the Black Men’s Forum at UM to ask whether the group supports an end to racial considerations in admission as well as in crime alerts. The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Why am I not surprised?
Last night by lethal injection of “untested drugs”, Ohio executed the brutal thug who, in 1989, raped and stabbed to death expectant mother Joy Stewart. Naturally, the left wing advocacy media wants to let people know how inhumane and cruel they believe it was by giving a play by play of what the killer went through in his final moments. Examples of headlines, along with excerpts (bolded emphasis added by me):
LUCASVILLE, Ohio — A condemned Ohio inmate appeared to gasp several times and took more than 15 minutes to die Thursday as he was executed with a combination of drugs never before tried in the U.S.
Death row inmate Dennis McGuire made several loud snorting or snoring sounds during one of the longest executions since Ohio resumed capital punishment in 1999.
McGuire opened and shut his left hand as if waving to his daughter, son and daughter-in-law. More than a minute later he raised himself up, looked in the direction of his family and said, “I love you. I love you.”
McGuire was still for almost five minutes, then emitted a loud snort, as if snoring, and continued to make that sound over the next several minutes. He also opened and shut his mouth several times without making a sound as his stomach rose and fell.
“Oh my God,” his daughter, Amber McGuire, said as she observed her father’s final moments.
A coughing sound was Dennis McGuire’s last apparent movement, at 10:43 a.m. He was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.
Previous executions with the former execution drugs took much less time, and typically did not include the types of snorts and gasps that McGuire uttered.
Columbus Dispatch – Killer struggles, gasps repeatedly under new 2-drug combination (newer headline: Inmate’s death called ‘horrific’ under new, 2-drug execution)
LUCASVILLE, Ohio — It wasn’t the terrifying, brutal death he inflicted on his 22-year-old victim in 1989, but Dennis McGuire did not go quietly yesterday.
McGuire struggled, made guttural noises, gasped for air and choked for about 10 minutes before succumbing to a new, two-drug execution method at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville.
There was no clear indication that the drug combination — never before used in a U.S. execution — triggered McGuire’s death struggles. But Allen Bohnert, one of McGuire’s federal public defenders, called the execution a “failed, agonizing experiment by the state of Ohio.”
McGuire’s death by lethal injection at 10:53 a.m. might have been marked by the “air hunger” that his attorneys predicted in legal moves rejected by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and declined for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The article in its entirety poses the implied question as to whether or not this was an inhumane death penalty procedure.
Many more headlines made note of the fact that the drug combinations used for the execution were “untested” … “raising questions” about the humanity of it. Right.
Look, I get that there has been a long-running debate in this country over the death penalty. Opponents argue that it doesn’t deter crime, that it is “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore unconstitutional, and believe that the state should not be involved in exacting “revenge penalties’ that involve putting someone to death for the intentional death of another. I’m not here to have that debate. In fact, for purposes of discussion let’s just accept all of those “justifications” banning capital punishment at face value without argument.
I only have one simple question, one simple request for the mainstream media: Will you ever cover the inhumanity of an abortion of an innocent unborn baby? The horrific procedures it goes through before it dies? If you’re going to advocate to spare the life of a convicted, admitted rapist and murderer because taking 15 minutes to die is “too long”, could you ever take the time to engage in advocacy journalism for the unborn baby, who, unlike the murderer, never got the chance at life? Joy Stewart’s unborn baby was 8 months along when both she – and it – were killed senselessly. What differences – if any – do you see between an unborn baby that has been murdered intentionally by a killer versus an unborn baby whose mother has decided it’s inconvenient to have at that time?
If you’re so willing to talk about the “moral side” to capital punishment, why not open up the “moral side” of the debate on abortions? Why is the issue of the right or wrongness of abortion mostly”off limits” in the mainstream media outside of giving unquestioned deference to the “right to choose” crowd, and outside of bringing up the rare cases where the life of the mother or baby is at stake? Most abortions – the VAST majority – are performed purely for convenience purposes. Why can’t we discuss that without being painted as “anti-women’s rights”? I AM a woman, dammit!
I don’t expect answers to any of these questions. But in light of the growing and strengthening movement by anti-death penalty types both in and out of the media to “respect” the life of a killer, I feel they should be asked all the same. A killer isn’t innocent. An unborn child is. The time to play the “sensitivity” card when it comes to how abortion is portrayed in the mainstream media should have expired long ago. It’s time to scrutinize this procedure. Give us the facts, the brutal honesty, the graphic details of what happens to these babies as they’re aborted. If the media thinks that a killer deserves leniency because he shouldn’t be subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment”, they should extend that same courtesy to the unborn.
BTW, the killer’s family plans to sue the state over the ‘suffering’ he allegedly went through during his execution. Not making that up.
Update – 1:30 PM: Life News graciously published my piece on their site as well. Thanks, y’all!
Via The Politico:
This probably isn’t the Obamacare PR push the White House had in mind.
Earlier Friday, Massachusetts State troopers found 1,250 bags of heroin labeled with “Obamacare” during a traffic stop in Hatfield, Mass., according to a post published on the Facebook page of the Massachusetts State Police.
A spokesperson for the Massachusetts State Police confirmed the incident, and explained that most times when sealed bags of heroin are found, they are stamped with a branding so that the strain can be identified.
“I think it’s whatever the person decides to put on it. So if the junkies who are buying them go, ‘Wow, that Obamacare stuff was really good,’” said Lt. Daniel Richard, adding that each of the bags weighed 0.3 grams.
“They label them with everything, so it’s not bizarre,” Richard said.
Along with the help of K9 Frankie assisting the troopers, the four individuals were taken into custody and charged with narcotics violation.
A 2012 story on Politicker reported Obama-branded drugs had become popular since his election in 2008.
Both the drug version and the legislation version of Obamacare: Each bad for you, but in vastly different ways …
Emily Yoffe at Slate penned a thoughtful, must-read yesterday that I’m sure she’s taking a lot of grief from “feminists” over – the emerging culture of binge drinking among young women and how it is turning some of them into rape victims:
In one awful high-profile case after another—the U.S. Naval Academy; Steubenville, Ohio; now the allegations in Maryville, Mo.—we read about a young woman, sometimes only a girl, who goes to a party and ends up being raped. As soon as the school year begins, so do reports of female students sexually assaulted by their male classmates. A common denominator in these cases is alcohol, often copious amounts, enough to render the young woman incapacitated. But a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.
A 2009 study of campus sexual assault found that by the time they are seniors, almost 20 percent of college women will become victims, overwhelmingly of a fellow classmate. Very few will ever report it to authorities. The same study states that more than 80 percent of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol. Frequently both the man and the woman have been drinking. The men tend to use the drinking to justify their behavior, as this survey of research on alcohol-related campus sexual assault by Antonia Abbey, professor of psychology at Wayne State University, illustrates, while for many of the women, having been drunk becomes a source of guilt and shame. Sometimes the woman is the only one drunk and runs into a particular type of shrewd—and sober—sexual predator who lurks where women drink like a lion at a watering hole. For these kinds of men, the rise of female binge drinking has made campuses a prey-rich environment. I’ve spoken to three recent college graduates who were the victims of such assailants, and their stories are chilling.
Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims.
Experts I spoke to who wanted young women to get this information said they were aware of how loaded it has become to give warnings to women about their behavior. “I’m always feeling defensive that my main advice is: ‘Protect yourself. Don’t make yourself vulnerable to the point of losing your cognitive faculties,’ ” says Anne Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, who has written on rape and teaches feminist jurisprudence. She adds that by not telling them the truth—that they are responsible for keeping their wits about them—she worries that we are “infantilizing women.”
Ms. Coughlin is right – we ARE infantilizing young women by withholding critical information from women, giving into the popular myth that it’s wrong to discuss rape prevention methods that involve women taking more care when it comes to their surroundings and state of mind. It’s my personal belief that the deliberate shielding of women from this obvious fact has caused more of them to become victims of rape. It’s so critically important that the public dialogue on women’s safety gets this right and starts being more upfront and candid about measures women young and old to take to cut down on the likelihood that they will become victims of crime.
I wrote about this a few months ago after reading about the Steubenville, case:
I get in trouble sometimes for making this argument because some people think I’m “blaming the victim.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a difference in saying something might have been preventable versus blaming the victim for what happened. No victim of rape deserves to be raped. Period. Full stop. My point is that I want there to be less victims of crime, not more, and the best way to reduce your chances of being a victim is to start by being responsible for where you are and the condition you are in and who you are with. Why is this so controversial to say? Parents tell their kids not to play too close to the street. Husbands remind their wives not to drive or walk in a bad neighborhood at all, especially at night and especially not alone. Mothers strongly urge a buddy system for their teenage daughters when a group of them get together for a beach trip. Why not encourage women, especially young high school and college women, to avoid getting drunk? Doesn’t mean you can’t drink, but it also means to not have so much to drink you forget who you are, where you are, and who you are with —- and what you’re doing. This applies to guys as well, of course, but fortunately for them they don’t have to deal with being date raped very often. Ladies – don’t put it all on the guy to be responsible. You need to be responsible, too, just in case.
These are common sense suggestions that aid in keeping people safe. They aren’t fool-proof, of course – you could take every single precaution possible and still find yourself in a situation you’d rather not be in – but you lessen your chances of being a victim of crime just by following simple advice on how to protect yourself.
Yes, we should be able to go where we want to go, and do what we want to do without fear that we’re going to be attacked – and that goes for men, too. We have the “right” of free will. But having “the right” to do something in our society doesn’t always = being ok to exercise it. With freedom comes responsibility, and we must be responsible for ourselves, and in our decision making, because our society is not perfect. And that is the reality of it – we don’t live in a perfect world, and there are people out there who will always be up to no good, so we must guard ourselves against such people. Amazingly enough, I’ve been able to do this for years and still – gasp – have managed to have fun!
It wasn’t always like this, however- when I was younger I DID find myself in situations that could have gotten me in a lot of trouble. I was VERY fortunate that ultimately they did not. I’ve done a lot of maturing since then, and my hope is that anyone reading this who has the mentality that they are invincible, please do a little soul-searching …. and growing up, too. Most men don’t rape (newsflash for “feminists”!) but there are bad people in the world, and taking precautionary measures to try and prevent yourself from being hurt could save you a lot of pain and grief and agony.
Isn’t it worth it to at least try?
Related: Yoffe responds to her predictable knee-jerking “feminist” critics here.
My apologies for not posting this sooner. Had a crammed full day today. Via the NYT:
WASHINGTON — At least 13 people, including one gunman, were killed, and the police were looking for other potential suspects, in a shooting Monday morning at a naval office building not far from Capitol Hill and the White House, police officials said.
One police officer was in surgery after being shot in an exchange of fire with a gunman, said Chief Cathy L. Lanier of the Metropolitan Police Department. The shootings took place at the Washington Navy Yard, in the southeast part of the city.
Senior law enforcement officials identified the gunman as Aaron Alexis, 34. He was identified through his fingerprints.
According to the Navy, Mr. Alexis enlisted as a full-time reservist in May 2007 and left the service in January 2011. He served as an aviation electrician, and the highest rank he achieved was mate third class. From February 2008 to January 2011, he was assigned to Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 46, in Fort Worth.
The Navy said Mr. Alexis had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.
Shortly after 4 p.m., the F.B.I. released a “Seeking Information” bulletin asking for the public’s help in learning more about Mr. Alexis. The bulletin, which had two photographs of Mr. Alexis, said he was 6 feet 1 inch tall, weighed 190 pounds and was born in Queens.
Valerie Parlave, the assistant director of the Washington field office of the F.B.I., urged members of the public to look at pictures of Mr. Alexis on the F.B.I. Web site and to call with any information they might have about him.
“No piece of information is too small,” she said. “We are looking to learn everything we can about his recent movements, his contacts and his associates. We ask the public to look at the photos of the deceased shooter.”
Three weapons were found on the gunman: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol, an official said.
“It’s hard to carry that many guns, so there is some thinking that he may have taken some of them from security or whoever else he shot,” the official said.
When loved ones join the military, you expect that if they are injured or killed it will be in the line of action and from the enemy, not deliberately from a fellow soldier, and certainly not on US soil. While the predictable left and some of their allies in the mainstream media are busy trying to find a link between the now-dead gunman and a Sean Hannity book, please keep the victims and their families in your thoughts and prayers tonight. Their pain must be unbearable. May God surround them and provide them with a measure of comfort in the agonizing days, weeks, and months ahead.
**Posted by Phineas
In 2009, the United States Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for anyone who committed a crime otherwise eligible for death prior to the age of 18.
This case shows why they were wrong:
De’Marquis Elkins now faces life in prison. At the time of the shooting, he was 17 – too young to face the death penalty under the state law.
Another youth, 15-year-old Dominique Lang, is to be tried later.
During the trial, prosecutors said Elkins shot Antonio Santiago in an attempted robbery. The killing sent shockwaves across America.
The jury in the town of Marietta, Georgia, found Elkins guilty of 11 counts, including two counts of felony murder and one count of malice murder on 21 March.
The shooting happened in the town of Brunswick, as Antonio Santiago was riding in a stroller pushed by his mother, Sherry West.
She told the court that her son was shot in the face and she was shot in the leg by Elkins after she refused to hand over her purse.
She said she told the assailants that she did not have any money and tried to shield her son, before shots rang out near her home.
“He asked me for money and I said I didn’t have it,” Ms West said, as she wept in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this year.
Someone kindly explain to me how Elkins committing this atrocity one day after his 18th birthday makes it okay to sentence him to death, but not if he was one day shy of it. Or even a week, a month, or a year.
The fact is we designate as “children” people who in other cultures and in earlier ages would have been old enough to fulfill the responsibilities of an adult: to own land, raise a family, participate in politics, fight as warriors, and to know right from wrong.
But, as we’ve “progressed,” we’ve lengthened the time of childhood and legal incompetency well past the point where it makes sense.
Somewhere around their 15th-16th year, “children” should know enough to know that killing a baby is wrong, among the most horrible things one can do. The killer should not be given special leniency because “he’s only a boy.” Not at that point. The law should be able to impose death for horrific crimes committed by those close to the age of majority, based on a jury’s weighing of the evidence.
Sherry West’s baby is dead, while Elkins is protected from paying the ultimate and just price for what he did. That’s not justice.
That’s just wrong.
via Tommy Hearn
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
Our celebrity President finally weighed in today on the “not guilty” verdict in the George Zimmerman trial and – as usual – had to make it about himself:
President Obama publicly and personally addressed the Trayvon Martin case for the first time since George Zimmerman was acquitted nearly a week ago, relating his own experiences to the “pain” the black community is feeling and going on to question so-called “stand-your-ground” laws.
The president delivered extensive remarks during a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room. He suggested race may have played a strong role in the case, saying that if a “white male teen” were involved, “both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
He went far beyond his remarks a year ago in which he stirred controversy by saying if he had a son, he’d look like Martin.
“Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” Obama said.
Sigh. Ignoring the fact that the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with SYG laws, and the fact that Zimmerman utilized his weapon lawfully upon being attacked, let’s all fantasize for five seconds what it would have been like had the President bothered to comment on the Gosnell verdict as well. Now, I KNOW he would NEVER display the kind of boldness and leadership needed to be able to make these remarks in the face of his pro-choice cult-like followers, but – again – this is a fantasy, not reality. My imagined response from BO:
“I could have been any one of those babies 51 years ago.” And/or: “We need to revisit abortion laws to determine whether or not our clinics are safe enough for women.” **
I know. Too much to ask, right? Especially from the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history. Sigh …
** Note: I know abortion wasn’t legal in Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth but my point was philosophical, not literal.
If you haven’t watched any post-Zimmerman verdict interview, you really should watch this one. Last night, Sean Hannity interviewed Mark O’Mara and Don West, the attorneys for George Zimmerman, and they discussed the trial theatrics, the media frenzy that got us here, and the rogue prosecution and their potentially unlawful conduct prior to trial.
I have a feeling there will be much more to come on this case from these two, particularly from O’Mara. Sanctions may even be forthcoming against the prosecution – O’Mara alleges withholding of evidence, among other things. We shall see.
BTW, attorney Don West stirred up a hornet’s nest not only with his failed “knock knock joke” to start off the trial with, but also because of his sparring with Judge Debra Nelson as well as “star” prosecution witness Rachel Jeantal. Some find him abrasive and overly blunt, but I think with all the back and forth that has gone on regarding this case, blunt truths about the media, the prosecution and George Zimmerman himself are much-needed. Keep on keepin’ on, Mr. West.
My mind has been a mosh pit of thoughts on this topic ever since the story of the tragic confrontation between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman first hit the national spotlight, and my thoughts on urban crime have increased tenfold in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s “not guilty” verdict. Our President, the DOJ, and the other Usual Race-Baiting Suspects like Rev. Al and Jesse have continued to make the Zimmerman case as one about self defense and gun laws, and – of course – racism, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman used his gun lawfully in defense of his person, and also conveniently side-stepping the fact that all signs point to Zimmerman not coming remotely close to being a racist (he was a mentor to black teens, for starters).
The back story behind Zimmerman being on his way to Target and then stopping because he saw someone he thought was suspicious was that Trayvon Martin fit the profile of the type of young men who had burglarized the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood for the past year or so: Hispanic and black teenagers, some of them wearing hoodies. This is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. While Trayvon Martin is a household name, not one of the so-called “civil rights activists” on the left are talking consistently ON A NATIONAL STAGE about any of the young black males who are murdered almost daily on the streets of Chicago, whose names none of us knows unless we live in the area. Why? Because there is no money to be made off of it, no career advancement in making black on black crime their central focus. Sure, you may see local efforts but what about on the national level? Nothing. And the murders continue.
Sadly, white liberals – who live in a perpetual state of liberal white guilt anyway – rush to jump on board any calls for “further investigation” into Zimmerman’s alleged “racism” while at the same time turning a blind eye to black on black crime that happens every day in urban areas. Again, why? Because “that’s just how it is,” they’ll tell you. Talk about racism! “Let the black community handle it,” others will say, as if we ALL don’t have a vested interest in having EVERY person in our society be able to grow up in an environment that doesn’t see them afraid for their lives every time they walk down the street.
I find this ignorant, hypocritical attitude by self-important, narcissistic leftists unacceptable. And so does Richard Cohen. Penning an column in today’s Washington Post, Cohen – a liberal – writes (hat tip):
I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.
One of those who quickly donned a hoodie was Christine Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council. Quinn was hardly a lonesome panderer. Lesser politicians joined her and, as she did, pronounced Zimmerman a criminal. “What George Zimmerman did was wrong, was a crime,” Quinn said before knowing all of the facts and before the jury uncooperatively found otherwise. She was half-right. What Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not, by verdict of his peers, a crime.
Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.
In the meantime, the least we can do is talk honestly about the problem. It does no one any good to merely cite the number of stop-and-frisks involving black males without citing the murder statistics as well. Citing the former and not the latter is an Orwellian exercise in political correctness. It not only censors half of the story but also suggests that racism is the sole reason for the policy. This mindlessness, like racism itself, is repugnant.
Indeed. There is no better time than now to have this uncomfortable but much-needed conversation on a national level, Unfortunately, the powers that be have no interest in meaningfully addressing what has been described by some as an “epidemic” in the black community, even though thorough and candid discussion on the issue could lead to policies and solutions that would have the potential to save more young black men’s lives than any level of gun control and any degree of “investigations” into the “racist past” of George Zimmerman that probably doesn’t even exist. If we could just find a way for the race profiteers to make money off of it ….
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.” – Jesse Jackson, 1993