This, pisses me off. What does that have to do with what happened last year November? I can see if Sean Bell was found with a gun in his car but they didn't find one. This is the kind of thing that distracts people from the real issue at hand. A innocent man gets shot dead, and what comes out in the press? Oh he may have shot some one in the past. Let's say he did shoot someone in the past. What does that incident have to do with what the cops did? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. At the time of the shooting the cops didn't know Sean Bell had any priors. And if they say that they did they are LYING.
I don't think that Sean Bell was a saint. I don't think he was some martyr for police brutality. All I know is that he was a human being. And he was killed for nothing. Why is it that whenever a black man gets killed by the cops the victims past comes in to question? Why can't the cops just take responsibility for their actions? There were FIVE cops on the scene but only THREE are in court and out of those THREE, ONE is going to probably end up in jail?
What kind of country are we living in, where the we blame the victim for getting shot? Seriously this is bullshit.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We promise to be candid and opinionated. And most of all we promise to have fun. The opinions expressed here are uncompromised and ours to share. Please remember this blog is a work in progress, and like most things in life, it will evolve. Readers are allowed to comment anonymously if they so choose. Thank you and enjoy.
Links
- Afro Punk
- After Party
- Airing of Grievances
- Allhiphop.com
- Allmusic.com
- BlackPressUSA.com
- CNN
- Comingsoon.net
- Fanboy Radio
- George Curry
- Humanity Critic
- iFanboy.com
- IMDB.com
- iPod Lounge.com
- JoBlo.com
- Lee's Myth
- Midtown Comics
- NFL.com
- NY Times
- Panama Jackson
- SOHH
- Spiritual Action
- Tallboyfilms.com
- Very Smart Brothas
- Write His Wrongs
Blog Archive
-
►
2008
(32)
- September (1)
- August (3)
- July (3)
- June (2)
- May (4)
- April (5)
- March (5)
- February (5)
- January (4)
-
►
2006
(13)
- December (2)
- October (1)
- August (2)
- June (1)
- May (1)
- April (1)
- March (1)
- February (3)
- January (1)
1 comment:
Some would say that blaming the victim is a long-standing American tradition. Think about how hard feminists had to work to change the focus of rape trials. And it's easy to see the same thought at work in the old catch-phrase, "The best defense [for the perpetrator] is a good offense [against the victim]."
It is certainly plausible that the rumors of Sean Bell's non-sainthood were spread by police sympathetic to their colleagues' plight, although I must confess that Al Sharpton's claim that it was a "smear" automatically makes me a bit skeptical.
But to play devil's advocate for a moment, consider this hypothetical. Suppose persons X, Y and Z are standing around, minding their own business. Homicidal M comes along and guns down all three of them down in a firestorm of bullets. Under the facts presented, we can expect that M will be prosecuted for three murders. That is the right thing, legally.
But when the media start digging around into the backgrounds of the victims, they look for things that have no legal relevance to M's guilt, but will affect only the court of public opinion. We find out that X was a 6-year-old child (awww), but was sometimes mean to his little sister (boo). Maybe Y was a social worker who worked with the homeless and changed the lives of hundreds of people. And maybe Z was a petty criminal who made his living by beating up old ladies and taking their pocketbooks.
M is still guilty of all three murders (and will presumably be convicted if the evidence is legally sufficient), but it is perfectly legitimate to feel the loss to society of X and Y is greater than the loss to society of Z.
Post a Comment