I hate Pages O’ Hate » « All right, we’re done here now

A tiny scrap of justice

The man who murdered Renisha McBride, the 19 year old black woman who committed the terrible crime of knocking on his door, has been found guilty of second degree murder, and sentenced to 17 years in prison. That’s a light sentence for a shotgun blast to the face of a harmless person looking for help after a car crash, but at least it was a guilty verdict.

I hate Pages O’ Hate » « All right, we’re done here now

Comments

  1. Alverant says

    How soon before he tries to appeal claiming the jury was bias against him due to recent news events?

  3. Pteryxx says

    Maybe a white person would get a life sentence once they’d shot dead their third unarmed black person. /sarcasm /maybe

  4. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Murdering a black woman: 17 years. Three strikes of pot possession: life behind bars.

    Land of the Free, right? Right?

    Did she really have a reasonable expectation of not being shot when she knocked on a stranger’s door? *eyeroll*

  5. boadinum says

    It’s a small step in the right direction. Prosecuting white cops for murdering black teenagers seems to be a step too far at the moment.

  6. says

    17 years, or more precisely “life with a minimum of 17 years” would not be out of whack with the typical sentence for a crime like this in most other western nations. Only in America would it be seen as a light sentence, thanks mostly to how skewed and punitive the US criminal justice system has become because of the relentless campaigning by authoritarian conservatives to punish at all costs rather than rehabilitate.

    I fully understand the emotions involved when talking about crimes like this and the desire to seek justice for the victims, but let’s not fall into the trap set by the “tough on crime” crowd who have turned the US into the incarceration champion of the world, with 10 times as many people behind bars as Germany, for example (and that’s per capita).

    And remember, the price this nation is paying for this policy falls disproportionately on the black community.

  7. Jason Nishiyama says

    Reading the comments at the end of the linked news article is enough for one to lose one’s faith in humanity…

  8. Pteryxx says

    tacitus #6 has a point. Highlighting the hypocrisy isn’t the same as wishing a longer prison sentence on this guy.

    I for one hope he doesn’t get raped or beat up, doesn’t help rape or beat up anyone else, isn’t starved or tormented, doesn’t have his medical care withheld, that he stays in contact with his family, and that while living in a prison system full of black people, he might make enough friends that when he does get out, he’s capable of helping a black stranger rather than killing her. It’s possible. Stranger things have happened.

  10. says

    tacitus:

    17 years, or more precisely “life with a minimum of 17 years” would not be out of whack with the typical sentence for a crime like this in most other western nations. Only in America would it be seen as a light sentence, thanks mostly to how skewed and punitive the US criminal justice system has become because of the relentless campaigning by authoritarian conservatives to punish at all costs rather than rehabilitate.

    I have a lot more experience with the ‘merican penal system than I ever wanted, so I’m able to point out why a lot of people see this as a light sentence. 17 years is not 17 years. It’s highly doubtful this person will serve more than 5 to 7. He’ll be a candidate for early parole/release from the get go. As long as he doesn’t fuck up in prison, he’ll be out in a relatively short time. Sentencing is mixed up mess in the States, and parole boards are not standardized, and rarely have justice-related professionals on them.

  11. says

    Also, parole boards tend to rely highly on a ‘sincere’ show of regret. Of course, that means a lot of people can happily fake it, but what it comes down to is ‘do enough groveling and mention Jesus enough’ and you’ll probably be granted. This works better for a white person. POC have to do a lot of groveling.

  12. acroyear says

    re #6: the issue with ‘tough on crime’ and our incarceration policies is that we tend to feel like we’re giving lighter sentences to violent crime (thus not letting the sentence be the deterrent it should be seen as) because we’re locking up too many non-violent offenders and are running out of room in our (quota-driven or else we pay for it anyways) prisons.

    If states weren’t forcing mandatory huge sentences on judges who have, by their state constitutions, no authority to override* this might not be such an issue.

    *(such as the “possessing a weapon while committing a drug crime”, which means that someone ‘exercising’ their 2nd amendment rights with a simple hand pistol while also in possession of a tiny amount of dope can get a 55 year sentence – yes that has happened – which the state judge can not overrule and requires a federal appeal over the 8th amendment’s Cruel and Unusual clause).

  14. Pteryxx says

    point of order: Wafer’s not eligible for parole for 17 years, according to Rawstory:

    Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Dana Hathaway sentenced Theodore Wafer, 55, to a mandatory two years for felony firearm usage followed by concurrent sentences of seven to 15 years for manslaughter and 15 to 30 years for second-degree murder.

    That means he will serve at least 17 years in prison before being eligible for parole.

  15. Saad says

    White shooter. Young black victim. Stand-your-ground state. Still couldn’t get them to say not guilty? All the ingredients were right there. Poor guy must have had a really incompetent lawyer.

  17. numerobis says

    5-7 years actually in jail is a heavy sentence. That’s a grad school length of time — but grad school was mostly fun, whereas jail I doubt will ever be pleasurable.

    Sentencing in the US is utterly fucked up; this particular case is a rare one that feels reasonable.

  18. says

    Pteryxx:

    That means he will serve at least 17 years in prison before being eligible for parole.

    A conditional sentence, then. I think 17 years is appropriate. It’s by no means a light sentence. I think I’d feel better if there was going to be a ‘no more guns for you!’ attached to his future parole consideration.

  19. carlie says

    I dunno – in a case like this, I think the person is MORE of a threat to society than someone who commits a planned murder. At least in the case of a 1st degree planned murder, there is a reason, there is some sort of logic, there is usually some sort of weighing the potential consequences and the supposed “benefit” of making that other person cease to exist. With cases like this one, the guy thought that killing someone was a reasonable response to being scared because someone was knocking on his door, no other info given. I consider someone like that to be a much bigger threat , and that someone with that attitude shouldn’t be allowed to participate in society at large.

  20. says

    Carlie:

    I dunno – in a case like this, I think the person is MORE of a threat to society than someone who commits a planned murder.

    I think so too. This is someone who was operating on an unreasonable fear. That’s a person who is dangerously unpredictable. When someone is knocking on your door, you have a whole lot of options available to you, if you’re scared. Opening fire on the door and the person beyond it shouldn’t be on that list of options at all.

  21. Rich Woods says

    @Iyéska #18:

    I think I’d feel better if there was going to be a ‘no more guns for you!’ attached to his future parole consideration.

    Come on, show a bit of compassion. He’s got to have something to look forward to when he gets out. Something to work for, even.

    Adding carlie’s comment to that, yeah, this state of affairs is pretty twisted.

  22. Larry says

    I’m surprised. I’m sure the girl must have smoked pot or engaged in petty thievery when she was younger. Who knows, she may have even jay-walked a time or two. Surely, the RWNJ racists are on the case attempting to show that she must have murdered herself because of those past transgressions.

  23. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    I’m surprised. I’m sure the girl must have smoked pot or engaged in petty thievery when she was younger. Who knows, she may have even jay-walked a time or two. Surely, the RWNJ racists are on the case attempting to show that she must have murdered herself because of those past transgressions.

    “Possession of melanin over the legal limit.”

  24. unclefrogy says

    I think he may be befriended by skinheads in prison before he makes friends with the black inmates.
    His actions sure sound like he would be friendly toward their point of view.
    I would not expect any “conversion rehabilitation miracle” as an outcome.
    uncle frogy

  25. says

    I’m surprised. I’m sure the girl must have smoked pot or engaged in petty thievery when she was younger. Who knows, she may have even jay-walked a time or two. Surely, the RWNJ racists are on the case attempting to show that she must have murdered herself because of those past transgressions.

    She was high and extremely drunk, and four hours before the shooting she crashed her car. She wandered away from the accident site bleeding. Bystanders called police but they did not respond. It’s not known what she did for four hours.

    Many people have constructed narratives for those four hours that make her out as an extreme felon. There’s no evidence of any of it. The defense tried to argue that she was trashing his house, but there’s no evidence of the trashing having happened before the shooting.

    There’s also been much talk about her physical appearance, particularly her body weight. She was a heavy person.

  26. says

    Christine Rose:

    She wandered away from the accident site bleeding.

    As a great many car accident victims do. The cops should have already been searching for her.

    She was a heavy person.

    Big / Heavy, the new very scary. :eyeroll:

  27. says

    Christine Rose:

    There’s also been much talk about her physical appearance, particularly her body weight. She was a heavy person.

    Yes, a large person, like Mike Brown was a large person, therefor conveniently considered armed and dangerous by bigots everywhere. It’s POC as Hagrid, able to pound down very heavy doors and bend shotguns!

  28. twas brillig (stevem) says

    @Iyéska #18:

    I think I’d feel better if there was going to be a ‘no more guns for you!’ attached to his future parole consideration.

    I strongly agree with that sentiment. I was under the impression that such a command was SOP for felons after prison. That it was the first thing “background checks” would look for. But, it’s also the biggest flaw in today’s “background checks”, conviction is rarely considered, background check is just shuffling paper, then rubber stamped: “Approved”. But maybe I’m biased and things aren’t like that anymore, I doubt it.

  29. robro says

    tacitus @#6 — I assume you are aware that the “tough on crime” trope in American politics is a dog whistle for tough on black crime. That’s why so many black people end up in prison. According to Wikipedia, a DoJ study in 2009 showed that blacks made up 40% of that prison population you’re concerned about…while they represent about 14% of the total population. And most of those are there for the horrible crime of possessing drugs…not shooting someone.

    There’s no question that our criminal injustice system sucks, but perhaps making nice about some white guy with an itchy trigger finger because the prisons are full of (black) people isn’t the direction we want to head.

    But frankly, it’s almost surprising that he was convicted at all much less sentenced to 17 years…and as someone said up-thread, he will never server that much time. In some states he may have been able to claim “stand your ground” or some other judicial travesty and get off completely.

  30. says

    Robro @ 29, in this case, it was a conditional sentence, so he will serve 17 years before he can plead for parole. (See Pteryxx @ 14).

  31. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Meanwhile, Marissa Alexander, who fired a gun as a warning to her abusive husband but did not hit anyone, gets twenty years.

  33. gog says

    @Ibis3

    From Wikipedia

    Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.

    Maybe Michigan charges with both. I would have to go look through their laws on homicide to see for sure.

  34. U Frood says

    I checked Michigan law and was first quite happy to see that felons who committed crimes involving firearms are not afterward allowed to purchase firearms. Then I read further and found they can have that right restored by filling out a form and showing that they’ve rehabilitated themselves. So, yeah, not that encouraging..

  35. says

    U Frood:

    I checked Michigan law and was first quite happy to see that felons who committed crimes involving firearms are not afterward allowed to purchase firearms.

    That doesn’t address people who already have firearms, which will still be available once they are out of prison. It also doesn’t address other ways for a felon to obtain firearms, of which there are many.

  37. caesar says

    What bugs me is that a black person, especially a black man, is more likely to be shot dead by other black men, yet it’s the killing of a black person by a white person that most often gets the attention when it comes to disparities in victims of gun violence. There doesn’t even have to be any proof that the killing of the black person was motivated by racism. Often it’s just assumed at the start by liberals, specifically white liberals trying to give the impression of caring about the plight of blacks. The point is that it seems easier for the media, including our very own PZ, to characterize the disproportionate levels of gun violence against blacks in terms of alleged racism by whitey, while ignoring the responsibility that blacks themselves play. And why is that? I believe it’s because some people are afraid to criticize blacks because the word racism has been overused the same way the right abuses tge term communist.

  39. toska says

    caesar
    Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the media and racist apologists make excuses for murder when it is a white person killing a black person. So much so, that the murderer will often get light sentences or completely get off with no penalty. But don’t let that get in the way of pretending there isn’t a problem with racism in this country.

  40. caesar says

    That’s quite the rebuttal there Dalillama. Why that’s the equivalent of shitting on the chessboard and throwing it away just because you’re frustrated and can’t handle a peaceful discussion.

  42. says

    caesar:

    That’s quite the rebuttal there Dalillama. Why that’s the equivalent of shitting on the chessboard and throwing it away just because you’re frustrated and can’t handle a peaceful discussion.

    Many of us have interacted with you long enough to know that it can be pointless to try arguing with you. You’re going to cling to your libertarian or conservative republican views no matter how much evidence is thrown your way.

  43. toska says

    while ignoring the responsibility that blacks themselves play. And why is that? I believe it’s because some people are afraid to criticize blacks because the word racism has been overused the same way the right abuses tge term communist.

    And this shit? You’re saying that all black people are responsible and should be criticized for gun violence? You seem to think black people are a monolithe. This makes you a racist ass.
    –
    I’m guessing you are white; pardon me if that is incorrect. Why are you not held responsible for the school shootings and mass murders that white people do? Why is the conversation about mass murder not centered around criticizing the white community? Don’t “ignore the responsibility that whites themselves play.”
    See what’s wrong with your idiotic statement now?

  44. says

    “Black on black” crime

    On a night when thousands gathered at vigils throughout the nation to honor the memory of Michael Brown, Ezell Ford and victims of police brutality, one poet-activist addressed a racist fallacy at the root of how violence is sometimes reported by the media.

    Speaking at Chicago’s vigil in Daley Plaza Thursday evening, Malcolm London stated that in the Windy City “it’s not fair that in one part of this city, some folks will live until their hair is gray and in another part of this city, babies are literally dying.”

    “Some folks use this rhetoric that ‘black-on-black’ crime is a thing. That’s not even a real thing!” London said in a video shot by RedEye Chicago’s Megan Crepeau, before pointing out that the overwhelming majority of victims of violent crime share the same racial identity as their attackers — regardless of their race.

    “We don’t talk about ‘white-on-white’ crime in the news though,” he continued. “We keep using this rhetoric of ‘black on black’ crime as if something is defective with black people.”

    5 myths about crime in black America

    The myth of “black on black” crime

    Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag “#justicefordarryl,” Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green’s murder. But this wasn’t a call for help and assistance for Green’s family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday’s decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him “not guilty” of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

    Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have ”injected” race into the discussion, as if there’s nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman’s race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the “black-on-black” crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, “49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don’t care. Obama doesn’t care. #JusticeForDarryl.”

    The idea that “black-on-black” crime is the real story in Martin’s killing isn’t a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you’ll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O’Mara, who said that his client “never would have been charged with a crime” if he were black.

    (It’s worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn’t charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin’s cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)

    But there’s a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

    What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

    Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

  45. caesar says

    I have no doubt toska, that there is still a problem with racism which has yet to be resolved, but there comes a point when the racism charge is overused to the point where it’s no longer taken seriously. I think crying racism is a way for the media to try to endear themselves to blacks, but ftom my point of view, it comes across as condescending and cowardly. I think that most of what Ben Carson says regarding political issues is fucking stupid, but I like the fact that he puts himself out there against liberals who like to portray themselves as moral guardians against alleged racism from conservatives. If you want to show how sympathetic you are to blacks then you have to do more than cry racism; You have to be willing to point out shortcomings in blacks as well, and not just the usual conservative blacks that get villified all the time.

  46. Ichthyic says

    but there comes a point when the racism charge is overused to the point where it’s no longer taken seriously.

    only by people like yourself, who never really understood the generational damage it has caused.

    all you have done, time and time again every time you have posted here, is show us all just how fucking truly ignorant you are.

    what really saddens me though, is that it’s not just you that has been so mislead, and think you spout “truth” with your utter bullshit.

    there are way too many people just like you. self justifying assholes with no grasp of reality, who actually feel they can, and should, decide when racism ended.

    fuck you and your goddamn ignorance.

    I hope PZ finally tosses your ass so I personally no longer have to witness your blindness and stupidity, at least here.

  47. toska says

    You know what is condescending and cowardly? Saying all black people (yes, when you throw around terms like “the blacks” you are addressing them as a group instead of as individuals) should be criticized and held responsible for the violence of a few while refusing to hold yourself responsible for the violence perpetrated by white people.

  48. caesar says

    You know what is condescending and cowardly? Saying all black people (yes, when you throw around terms like “the blacks” you are addressing them as a group instead of as individuals) should be criticized and held responsible for the violence of a few

    You misunderstand. I’m not saying that all blacks are responsible for the violence of a few. I’m calling for fairness in assigning blame. Bringing up intergenerational racism is a proximate cause to some extent of the disproportionate gun violence against blacks, but at some point you can’t blame the past, or your circumstances for everything you do. For instance, the shooting of Renisha which PZ brought up in this thread , is brought up often in comparison with other cases of alleged racially motivated violence by white people against blacks even though there’s no evidence that this shooting had anything to do with race. How about we save the racism charge for instances of proven racism?

    while refusing to hold yourself responsible for the violence perpetrated by white people.

    Well I may or may not be white, but I won’t be revealing that anytime soon.

  49. Ichthyic says

    Well I may or may not be white, but I won’t be revealing that anytime soon.

    Trust me, nobody gives a shit.

    just fuck off.

  50. Saad says

    caesar,

    That’s okay. Just substitute whatever ethnicity you are for where toska said “white people.”

  51. says

    If you don’t think racism is an issue in this case, read the comments on any of the major news sites.

    It’s not clear whether or not Wafer even saw her before the murder. He says he didn’t, but his story changed a lot. (Per upstream comments about how they managed to get a conviction–that’s how. The jury found him a bad liar.) He may or may not have thought the person (or persons) outside of his door was black. Was his state of mind influenced by racism? Probably, but I can’t prove it.

    The point is that the whole affair has been informed by race. No one would have thought he was justified blowing off the face of an unarmed white teenaged girl knocking on the door, no matter how rude and drunk she was and no matter how close to Detroit the house was. That’s the racism. The assumption that somehow this combination of circumstances makes it okay to pulp dark skinned people but not pale people.

  52. Suido says

    @ceasar #48

    How about we save the racism charge for instances of proven racism?

    I hardly dare ask, but what, pray tell, are your standards of proof in this wibbly-wobbly world of ours? Our world of conflicting witness statements, poor memories, lies told under oath, etc.

    We don’t have magic mirrors to tell us who is the actual racists, we simply have to make judgement calls based on behaviour… please, enlighten us as to the minimum behaviour required for “proven racism”?

  53. Pteryxx says

    I haven’t posted this history longread to the Good Morning America thread yet, but it’s just too relevant to caesar’s last deflection.

    What Was the Colfax Massacre

    Backing Bradley up at the Supreme Court, the majority of justices, spoken for by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, ruled in United States v. Cruikshank [1875] that racial animus had to be explicit — and explicitly alleged — in order to be actionable at law (a factor federal prosecutors still struggle with in weighing hate crime charges today). At the same time, the court held that the federal government had no role to play in prosecuting individuals for violating the civil rights of African Americans — that was the states’ job.

    […]

    I tried, for this column, to wrap my brain around the fact that less than 10 years after black people were guaranteed equal protection under the Constitution following the deaths of some 750,000 soldiers during the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court turned a blind eye to white supremacist groups like the KKK. Groups who, cloaked in their hate for the newly freed black citizens, legislated conditions which, over time, would justify racial targeting and which would help create the conditions that would manifest themselves into the racial profiling so common today. (The court might have called it “Take your ground,” and history should call the events at Colfax what they were: a massacre.)

    And even more relevant to the George Zimmerman verdict, the Colfax case contributed to a legal culture that said, in effect, “as long as you don’t say you’re motivated by racism, we’ll look the other way.” Goldstone was right: This was, indeed, the blueprint, and its consequences are very much with us to this day.

  55. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    You must actually say, “n**ger” while you are shooting?

    And, presumably “and I don’t mean that ironically!”

  57. ck says

    So, I see caesar took a dump on the carpet again, and is shocked that everyone isn’t marvelling at it.

    Re: black-on-black crime
    Most people are victims of crimes done by other people in their own relative area rather than outsiders. Shocking, isn’t it.

    Re: “racist” for the left is the same as “communist” for the right.
    “It’s political correctness gone mad!!!” Or maybe we can just judge people by their actions, and if their actions strongly imply that they’re racist, there’s no reason not to call them racist. I don’t care what is deep in the person’s heart. Don’t want to be called racist? Avoid saying or doing racist things.

    Re: you can’t blame the past
    I wasn’t aware that there was a generational reset switch, and that some generations got to start out on a level playing field. It seems to me, given that there are clear political and business dynasties (let’s say the Kennedy or Bush families), that there is plenty of blame for the past, even over many, many generations. Hell, just watch this video from John Oliver. And if wealth can be transferred between generations, why can’t poverty?

  58. says

    Pihema Cameron, not forgotten. He was a little boy stabbed to death for tagging in our community & the man only got one year’s jail.

  59. noxiousnan says

    Do you have even one scrap of evidence for your suspicion about the media, Caesar? It has always seemed fairly obvious to me that when a society forces poverty upon a group by rarely hiring or educating them, that it would be far more likely they’d live in the same, low income areas, and it would follow, the criminal activity would be against their peers. This has always been speculation on my part, never researched, but Tony seems to have provided evidence that would support my guess.

    This thread, btw, is the very first time in my life I’ve heard the term ‘white on white crime.’ I’ve heard ‘black on black crime’ come up countless times.

    I’ve just scrolled down and I don’t see you addressing Tony’s post #44 at all; why not? How come those who ignore arguments they can’t win cling so strongly to their bullshit assumptions? Dalillama @38 had it right.

  60. ck says

    And just to temper this little bit of relatively good news with some terrible, disgusting, awful news:

    A Kentucky man paints the words “KKK wants you to burn” on a neighbours fence and threatens the family with a shotgun. The 8 year old stepdaughter calls the cops who arrive and decide to do nothing apparently because the man was drunk. The following day, he douses the outside of the family’s house in gasoline and starts threatening them again with his shotgun. This is finally enough to have the cops arrest him, but he’s back out now on $10,000 bail. Maybe it’s just the cynic in me talking, but maybe the local authorities are hoping that he’ll finish the job he seems to have set out to do?

  61. Amphiox says

    I’m not saying that all blacks are responsible for the violence of a few.

    Yes, you disgusting liar, you are. If you weren’t you would not have used the loaded term “black on black crime” which EXPLICITLY says just that.

    calling for fairness in assigning blame

    No, you disgusting liar, you are not. If you were you would not have mentioned the term “black on black crime” which EXPLICITLY unfairly assigns blame (and is also irrelevant to any discussion of this case.)

  62. rq says

    Tony @44
    re: black-on-black crime
    What a lot of the activities and events following Ferguson have also shown is black people actually addressing (black-on-black) crime, and doing so loudly. They just never get the media attention.

  63. says

    I’ve yet to see caesar produce any input to Pharyngula but taking dumps on the carpet. Complete trolling waste of perfectly good pixels (and mine are fair-trade pixels, harvested by well-paid and happy migrant workers from the slopes of Belgium’s finest volcanic tropical mountains, then roasted carefully in a solar oven, before being hand-delivered direct to my door by pony relay – expensive as all hell, but I think you’ll agree, worth it).

  64. anteprepro says

    Aww, caesar is Concerned about attributing this race huh? Of course he is. Because that means we would have a social issue to address. caesar has far too many fucks to give to himself to have any left to give about anyone else, so he simply cannot have a state of affairs where he might be expected to care about something that isn’t caesar. That would truly be an undue burden, an obscene state of affairs! Why if this was about race, he might need to stop masturbating to Atlas Shrugged for five whole minutes and express resembling sympathy! He might even need to say something that actively opposes the status quo but that, if changed, wouldn’t directly financially benefit him! Simply unheard of.

  65. A Masked Avenger says

    To those early in the thread wishing he would also be barred from owning guns: he is. Anyone convicted of a federal crime with a *possible* sentence of more than a year, or a state crime with a *possible* sentence of more than two years, regardless of the actual sentence, is barred for life from possessing firearms. This is a federal law, so it applies in all US states and territories, and supersedes any state law that might be to the contrary.