No contemporary stats will disprove anything that happened in 1992.
Dennis, he's right about this.
No contemporary stats will disprove anything that happened in 1992.
To state that a Black attack on a White does not generate the same media attention and public outrage is just an unpleasant fact. This should be prosecuted as a hate crime. However, to discuss this disparity in attitude is a far cry from using terms like "ghetto culture," ominous warnings about a potential "race war," and use this tragedy as an excuse to vent racist sentiment. If the crowd attacked him because he is White, then they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including prosecution for hate crimes. I hope that African-American leaders like Sharpton and Jackson have the moral courage to condemn this attack.
Things will not get better until we ALL make a concerted attempt to remove hateful feelings and rhetoric and start trying to make them better. And if this guy had a gun, I think he would have been justified in shooting down as many of his attackers as he had rounds. That's a personal. not legal, opinion.
You dont have to be attacked for the law to take affect. Only in fear for your life or that of another as the law reads. If a mob is coming at you are you going to wait until you are overwhelmed (attacked) by the mob before you take action. Like I said you read it differently than I do
I don't believe that. The way I read it is that you can intervene if you are a bystander in the attempt to prevent said bodily harm to another, even if you are not part of it.
Otherwise, you can be driving down the road and see a man beating a woman with a chain or baseball bat and you are forbidden from intervening to save her life. That does not make sense, not that the law always does, but it is not the way I read it. I'd be interested in case law or precedent to prove it, if there is any available.
<edit> After re-reading the law, I can see where you might interpret it that way. However, I do not believe that is the intent of the law... perhaps we should start a campaign during next session to have our legislators clarify that wording, so that it may be more clear. Would hate for a well-intentioned, law-abiding citizen to end up hoisted on his own petard for doing the right thing in such a situation.
You would think that...but you'd be wrong. Even if the man had committed a crime and the mob was there to mete out justice, I don't have to let them kill him on my front steps. That would be a felony, and I can intervene if I so choose.
No f_ _ _ _ ing way I'm gonna watch a man get beat to death on my porch.
Enter your email address to join: