Why Is This Man Shot And Why Is This Man Not (1 of 10)


  • Charles Kinsey
    • Works with people with disabilities
    • Lying down with his hands in the air
    • Has no weapon
    • Followed every single instruction he was given

An officer fired three times hitting Mr. Kinsey in the leg

  • Matthew Bernard
    • Arrested on three counts of first-degree murder
      • Two victims had visible gunshot wounds to the head from a 30 caliber
      • One was beaten with a sledgehammer
      • He choked a church caretaker while being watched by police
      • He threatened reporters at the scene
      • Killed the family dog

An officer can be seen running away from Mr. Bernard and cameras watch as he tries to kill the local church caretaker by chocking him. Later, more police show up but no one attempts to shoot the mass murder suspect.

See All Ten

https://realitydecoded.blog/category/10-why-was-man-shot/

Categories: 10 Why Was Man ShotTags:

45 comments

  1. This is what happens when life experience is replaced with book learning, opinions, and training. A toy truck and a disabled person certainly is cause for alarm. Even the person who called 911 is at fault for stupidity. Whenever you tell a story it affects the perception before you arrive in scene. Its never as described by the caller. They should know this. But now more useless training will supplant the old style common sense based on utility.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Not sure what the “old style” spoken of above is exactly, but the way policing is done and has been done, in the U.S., at least, has to be completely cleaned out and revamped. Mutual respect between those who are hired to “serve and protect” and those who supposed to be recipients of this treatment along with demilitarizing the police force into something much less and unnecessarily intimidating and hardcore is the only solution to the difference between preserving the lives of some while others suffer abuse and unwarranted murder. For those who are dubious, go to the Camden, NJ story and see how they fared by doing exactly that: cleaning out the police department, rehiring, retraining for community-based policing, funneling money into communities. Crime has gone down by a huge percent, homicides have gone down by a huge percent, and complaints about police brutality have gone down by 95%.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I know, right? It gives me hope that real change can actually happen…and work!
    My husband grew up in East New York and remembers when there were cops walking a beat back then. They weren’t afraid of the police. Everyone knew everybody’s name.
    There was a connection that’s missing today.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. According to the news reports, the officer in the first video was aiming for the seated man (and missed) — not the one lying on the ground. Why wasn’t that noted in your ‘bullet’ points?

    Liked by 1 person

    • So you want a special note from me stating that the police officer committing a criminal act by shooting at the unarmed mentally disabled man with the toy truck is a better comparison to the man that was not shot at, who murdered a child, a mother, a local man, and tried to choke a church member to death (in plane site of police)

      My Response — LOL…. pass

      Like

      • No. What I’m requesting is an honest representation of the facts. By omitting that fact, it leaves the impression the police officer was deliberately shooting at the man on the ground with his hands in the air.

        So the answer to your first question (Why was this man shoot [sic]?”) is: because the officer missed the target he was aiming for. Whether or not he was justified in shooting is irrelevant to the conversation.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ron?

          Why was the officer performing a criminal act by firing at either one of them?

          Also keep in mind that both of them were people of color.

          I’m also curious why the second person, (The one that murdered a child and mother), wasn’t shot while trying to choke someone to death.

          It’s a mystery Oo

          Like

          • Q: Why was the officer performing a criminal act by firing at either one of them?

            A: According to the officer’s statement, he fired because he thought Mr. Soto (the seated man) was threatening kill Mr. Kinsey (the man on his back with his hands in the air and was trying to save Mr. Kinsey’s life. And a jury found the officer guilty of culpable negligence — which is a misdemeanor, not a criminal act.

            “Also keep in mind that both of them were people of color.”

            Good point. The police officer (Jonathan Aledda) is Hispanic and also a person of color.

            Q: I’m also curious why the second person, (The one that murdered a child and mother), wasn’t shot while trying to choke someone to death.

            A: The second incident occurred in a different city with different police officers. Perhaps they were better trained, or more experienced, or both.

            Liked by 1 person

            • You Stated — “And a jury found the officer guilty of culpable negligence — which is a misdemeanor, not a criminal act.”

              My Response — A misdemeanor is a criminal offense which should be obvious since a jury found him guilty Oo. To put it simply, the criminal (officer in question) went outside the law and intentionally performed an act that could not be justified.

              In this case the criminal (officer in question), was told by the person he shot (the victim) that there was no threat from the mentally disabled individual multiple times (witnessed by other officers, civilians and recorded on camera).

              Not to mention that firing on an innocent civilian in the “line of sight” is not allowed.

              You Stated — “The second incident occurred in a different city with different police officers. Perhaps they were better trained, or more experienced, or both.”

              My Response — So you are saying that better training dictates that police should NOT shot a child murderer who is actively running around choking innocent civilians with the intent of killing them? Also noting that he killed a mother, a local man and a dog (one with a sledgehammer).

              Yikes Ron! That is a long way to go to make an excuse for the lack of response in one encounter and the abundantly clear over response in the other. The message being to not shot mass murderers but absolutely innocent civilians with their hands up Oo.

              Let’s agree to disagree

              Like

              • “A misdemeanor is a criminal offense”

                You are correct. I had meant to write felony. Mea Culpa! But it still doesn’t change the fact that the jury found him guilty of a lessor crime.

                Q: So you are saying that better training dictates that police should NOT shot a child murderer who is actively running around choking innocent civilians with the intent of killing them?

                A: No. I said ““The second incident occurred in a different city with different police officers. Perhaps they were better trained, or more experienced, or both.” The rest is you projecting your own thoughts into the mix, à la Cathy Newman of Channel 4 ‘News’.

                “Let’s agree to disagree”

                Translation: I have no factual ammo and since the officer in the first incident was a POC my race-baiting venture is a total bust. 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

                • It doesn’t really matter how much people want to pick and choose arguments or dissect to the point of minutia. The fact remains that the police have become militarized and for every “good” cop that might exist, a militarized, gonzo “bad” cop exists who does not carry out his/her job with the motto “to protect and serve” foremost in their mind. Anyone can experience brutality and negative situations with them, but the focus tends to be on people of color more than white people. You can pretend it’s not happening all you want, especially if you’re not a target. But it is happening and now and the system needs to be cleaned out like the bad infection that it has become.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • I agree that there are good cops and there are bad cops, and that the bad ones should be weeded out. But there’s zero evidence that racism played a role in either of the cases presented.

                    Like

                    • From your point of view there’s zero evidence. But in fact there have often been incidents of this nature where a white person acting completely insane, out of control–I recall one incident where a guy had a knife and kept thrusting it at the police yelling, “Just kill me! Kill me!” and they placatingly put their hands up saying (sic) “Calm down, we don’t want to do that,”–white people with weapons in their hands have come out of the encounter with police alive while ethnic people walking away from police, running away, unarmed, hands in the air, have been gunned down.

                      So there’s some kind of knee-jerk reaction happening with regards to skin color and who deserves/receives the “protect and serve” belief system and who doesn’t deserve it. In this case maybe everything hasn’t been spelled out down to the last syllable about what really went on,
                      but it seems like you’re angry about more than what you perceive as “misrepresented” facts in these two cases, otherwise why use such inflammatory terms as “race-baiting”?

                      Isn’t the purpose here to get people talking about the systematic and institutionalized racism that’s been going on since the country’s founding, to open the eyes of many people who have never even thought about how they benefit from this system on completely unequal footing with those who do not benefit in any way at all? I understand that the hammering from the media about “racism, racism, racism” and inequality and oppression, etc., etc., is probably not a good thing in the sense that people can only take so much “truth” at one time and will start shutting down at a certain point.

                      But using a term like “race-baiting” is offensive, considering the pain and suffering ethnic people go through on a daily basis in this country, where “race” itself is the only cause for their being in some kind of ever-present spotlight. It’s disingenuous to turn the tables like that. Don’t you remember when Affirmative Action had been around for, like, five minutes before people started complaining that it was “reverse racism”? That’s what this feels like to me. You could just write a gentle response saying you know of alternate facts to these cases that don’t quite match up to the blogger’s facts, and here’s the links if you’re interested to know, and while you don’t agree with the entire presentation because you don’t think it’s being fully transparent, you’re on the same page that there’s a big problem in this country that has to be addressed, at the very least, changed and altered for the better at the most.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • It has little to do with my point of view and everything to do with the facts surrounding the case presented in this post — the most pertinent one being that the officer aimed for the seated man and missed, hitting the other. You could argue he’s a poor marksman, but there is no evidence his actions were racially motivated. Because in order to prove that, you would have to show that the same officer handles similar situations differently based purely on the color of the suspect’s skin. And what may happen in other incidents has no bearing on what happened in this particular case. Otherwise, one could just as easily counter that while the man who was shot did everything right in this instance, there are other incidents in which the people who were shot did not cooperate.

                      Nor am I angry. Aside from the occasional pun, my comments are written without emotion. Moreover, offense is taken — not given. So if you deem the term “race-baiting” inflammatory, that reflects more on your emotional state of mind rather than on mine. And the remainder of your comment amounts to little more than tone policing — i.e., it focuses on the manner in which my comment was delivered rather than addressing the content of the message itself.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You State — “And the remainder of your comment amounts to little more than tone policing — i.e., it focuses on the manner in which my comment was delivered rather than addressing the content of the message itself.”

                      My Response — But when we look at the content what do we see?

                      The officer was found guilty yet you still say he had a good reason to shot (why)

                      Both men were unarmed and not causing harm to others yet you still say the officer had a good reason to shot (why)

                      An innocent civilian on his back, hands in the air, following instructions to the letter, is shot and almost killed yet you still say the officer had a good reason to shot (why)

                      The mentally challenged person playing with a toy truck in broad daylight, within full sight of other officers and civilians clearly shows he was no threat and yet you still say the officer had a good reason to shot (why)

                      3 shots fired at either person A for begging not to be shot or person B for being to old to play with toy trucks. (why)

                      Oo

                      Like

                • You Stated — “But it still doesn’t change the fact that the jury found him guilty of a lessor crime.”

                  My Response — The article I posted asks why was one man shot and the other not. Your argument is about what level of criminal activity was performed by the police officer.

                  Since you are not being direct I have to guess that you are saying that the man was shot because the officer is a criminal.

                  I agree.

                  You Stated — That the man who murdered a child, mother, local man, dog, and choked a church member was not shot because, and I quote.

                  “The second incident occurred in a different city with different police officers. Perhaps they were better trained, or more experienced, or both.”

                  Oo LOL if only he had reached for a drivers license to justify the “better trained officer” putting a stop to his rampage.

                  You made a comment about race bating but my article doesn’t mention any race, it just asks the question why was one man shot and another not.

                  Are you stating that he was shot because of his race?

                  Like

                  • There are no deep mysteries to be plumbed here. The reason the man was shot was because the officer missed his intended target. End of story. Nor does it in any way relate to what transpired between different police officers in a different locale. It’s the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges. Both may be fruits, but that’s about where the similarity ends.

                    As to the race-baiting question, you’re the one who brought up the POC angle — remember? If that wasn’t your intent, why mention it?

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “The reason the man was shot was because the officer missed his intended target. End of story.”

                      My Response — So shooting the mentally challenged person would have made all the difference, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t a threat and had an innocent civilian directly in the line of site. Oo

                      You Stated — “Nor does it in any way relate to what transpired between different police officers in a different locale.”

                      My Response — So we can’t compare how different officers respond, (but you can) and did when you stated that maybe the other officers were “better trained” Oo

                      You Stated — “As to the race-baiting question, you’re the one who brought up the POC angle”

                      My Response — I will admit some bias in my statement since at the time I couldn’t think of any other good reasons why a rouge police officer would shot at a man lying on his back begging police not to kill a mentally disabled person. Oo

                      Ron, you are way over apologetic for the police

                      Just Saying

                      Like

                    • L7: So shooting the mentally challenged person would have made all the difference, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t a threat and had an innocent civilian directly in the line of site.

                      According to the arrest warrant, officers were dispatched after receiving a 911 call about mentally ill person with what appeared to be a gun.

                      However the dispatcher was not the same person who took the call and failed to relay the fact that the man was mentally ill:

                      At approximately 1700 hours (5:00 P.M.), a MDPD dispatcher notified a North Miami Police Department (NMPD) dispatcher of the following: “North Miami 50, 2-44 there is a male with a gun to his head in the middle of the roadway, 129 Street NE 14th Avenue.” “2-44” is a two part police signal, with “2” serving to alert officers to respond in emergency mode. “44” indicates that the incident involves a suicidal person. It should also be noted that the MDPD dispatcher is a different person from the MDPD 911 call taker and, therefore, was not the person that communicated directly with [name redacted] . . . The MDPD dispatcher then transmitted the following dispatch over the radio, “Attention all units a 2-44 (emergency mode suicidal person), 129 Street and NE 14 Avenue, there’s a male with a gun to his head in the middle of the roadway, white Latin male wearing grey and black t-shirt and grey pants, North Miami 281 [Officer Warren], attention North Miami 113 [Officer Villard] and North Miami 212 [Officer Bemadeau], 2-44 129th Street and NE 14th Avenue. (5:01 P.M.).”

                      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3557174/North-Miami-Police-Officer-Aledda-Arrest-Warrant.pdf (pp. 5-6 of 24)

                      So the officer didn’t know the man was mentally ill, and according to his testimony, he believed the man was holding a gun

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoHf3xpBODY (0:42 onwards)

                      L7: So we can’t compare how different officers respond, (but you can) and did when you stated that maybe the other officers were “better trained”

                      I only responded because you raised the issue. [L7: “I’m also curious why the second person, (The one that murdered a child and mother), wasn’t shot while trying to choke someone to death.”]

                      L7: I will admit some bias in my statement since at the time I couldn’t think of any other good reasons why a rouge police officer would shot at a man lying on his back begging police not to kill a mentally disabled person.

                      LOL. Far be it for me to criticize anyone for their spelling and grammar errors (given that I’m guilty of committing the same mistakes), but I think you meant to write “rogue” officer, because “rouge” means “red” — the color everyone was seeing after the shooting occurred. Thanks for the chuckle. 🙂

                      However, there’s little reason to conclude the officer went rogue and plenty enough to conclude there was a serious breakdown in communications. He acted on the information received and his assessment of the situation from his vantage point, and was found guilty of a misdemeanor because he endangered the lives of fellow officers and innocent bystanders, as well as Mr. Kinsey. So if racism is the first and only thing that comes to mind whenever there is a police shooting that involves actors having different skin tones, I would seriously encourage you to investigate the possibility that cops might have other — i.e., non-racist — reasons for shooting at their suspects. (One such reason being to immobilize a perceived threat to themselves or others.)

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “However the dispatcher was not the same person who took the call and failed to relay the fact that the man was mentally ill:”

                      My Response — It was stated at the scene repeatedly by the individual who was shot. Witnessed by other officers, civilians and captured on tape. Your argument is not convincing.

                      You Stated — “So the officer didn’t know the man was mentally ill, and according to his testimony, he believed the man was holding a gun.”

                      My Response — The video shows that there was no gun, the jury was not convinced by his testimony and the officer himself stated (at the scene) that he did not know why he shot the man. Your argument is not convincing.

                      You Stated — “However, there’s little reason to conclude the officer went rogue and plenty enough to conclude there was a serious breakdown in communications.”

                      My Response — By “communication” do you mean between his eyes and his frontal lobe? It is clear from the tape that the men were unarmed, on the ground, and not posing a threat to anyone?
                      To put that in context with the post, they had not killed several people, murdered a child and were not actively choking people nearby. Oo

                      I understand that you see the police in these situations as the victims of an oppressive public social justice system. You also are deeply passionate in your defense of them, regardless of their reckless and illegal actions, but in the end your arguments are not persuasive on this topic.

                      Since, in this case, the jury found the officer guilty, I find your opposing argument unconvincing. I agree with the jury, the officer is in the wrong. Your opinion is noted but unproductive.

                      Like

                    • L7: It was stated at the scene repeatedly by the individual who was shot. Witnessed by other officers, civilians and captured on tape. Your argument is not convincing.

                      From the same affadavit (p. 13 of 24):

                      Measurements done by Officer Duhamel Jeanite reveal that Officer Aledda was approximately 152 feet away from Mr. Kinsey. From that distance Officers Warren and Aledda were too far from Mr. Soto and Mr. Kinsey to hear anything either was saying. According to Officer Warren, from that distance he could not see exactly what was in Mr. Soto’s hands.

                      And according to the eyewitnessness testimony of the man who recorded the incident:

                      Reporter: Do you think he could have heard what Mr. Kinsey was saying at the time when he was shouting?

                      Witness: I’m very sure that that officer there was no possible way that you can hear from that distance.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zduLMYpfKAI&feature=emb_title (~2:15)

                      So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, it’s your argument that is unconvincing — not mine.

                      And as I already explained in a prior comment, comparing how police officers acted in Keeling, Virginia with how a different group of police officers acted in North Miami, Florida is an exercise in futility, because one cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from making such a broad-based comparison of two completely unrelated incidents.

                      The remainder of your response amounts to pure conjecture, so I’ll ignore it except to say that my passion leans towards remaining impartial and sticking to the facts. How about you?

                      Like

                    • You Stated — “So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, it’s your argument that is unconvincing — not mine.”

                      My Response — Nothing you are copying from the web convinced the jury before they convicted the officer of committing a crime. You are defending someone who lost his case.

                      Even the officer admitted at the scene that he didn’t know why he shot the man Oo. That should be enough right there yet you still argue.

                      Like I said before, you are very passionate for the police, which is understandable, but ignoring the reality of this crime is nonsensical.

                      I still find your argument to be unconvincing and the jury was right in their findings. Nothing you find on the web is going to change the courts verdict.

                      You Stated — “The remainder of your response amounts to pure conjecture, so I’ll ignore it”

                      My Response — I don’t blame you, going up against logic and facts is almost impossible, your dodge is understandable.

                      I would say we can end this line of discussion since we have both argued our positions ad nauseam.

                      Like

                    • Actually, there were two trials. In both cases the officer testified that he thought the man on the ground was being held hostage and in danger. The first jury was hung on the two counts of attempted manslaughter and one count of culpable negligence, but found him not guilty on a fourth count of culpable negligence. A second jury found him not guilty on the two felony charges of attempted manslaughter, but guilty on the misdemeanor third charge of culpable negligence. The judge sentenced him to one year of administrative probation and community service. He was subsequently fired from the police force and the man who was shot at settled for an undisclosed amount of money.

                      And racism played no role in the matter because both the officer and the man he shot at (but missed) were Hispanic.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “Actually, there were two trials.”

                      My Response — Your focus is very odd, the number of trials doesn’t have any bearing on the gilty verdict. The police officer was found guilty, the officer fired, and the man wrongly shot was justly compensated.

                      You keep arguing points that have no meaning to the end result. You aslo keep ignoring the fact that the officer changed his story from that which he gave at the scene.

                      I get that you are passionate about wanting this criminal to be found innocent of any wrong doing but it’s not going to happen. If you had any real evidence, you could turn it in and get his conviction overturned. Oo

                      As for racism I find your argument to be unconvincing but again it doesn’t matter. The officer was found guilty and kicked off the force. Given that he is a crimminal I don’t see a need to trust his testimony, so his motive for shooting an unarmed man is still open to opinion. Your opinion of the event is not convincing.

                      Like

                    • A hung jury means not everyone in the first trial was convinced he was guilty. Even so, being found guilty for a misdemeanor crime of culpable negligence (or even being a shitty cop, for that matter) does not automatically equate to being found guilty of being a racist.

                      So the onus of providing evidence showing the officer’s actions were racially motivated by racial bias rests firmly with those making the allegation.

                      Like

                    • You are overly focused on the individual being a racist which is why your argument is not convincing. No one is saying that the officer is a racist, they are saying that his actions are racist. Could he be a racist… maybe but that’s not the focus of this encounter.

                      Systemic racism can almost be compared to muscle memory. A repetitive reaction to individuals based on the environment and race without consideration of the individual or the current situation.

                      Your response to the comparison given in the post lacks empathy of the victims treatment.

                      Like

                    • L7: “. . .his actions were racist”

                      Response: Cite empirical evidence in support of this assertion, please!

                      And “Systemic racism” — much like invisible pink unicorns, fire-breathing dragons and “original sin” — is a myth. Prove it exists. The onus is the one making the claim.

                      Like

                    • You Requested — “Cite empirical evidence in support of this assertion, please!”

                      My Response – Sure, below we can clearly see systemic racism.

                      https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/08/26/convenience-store-clerk-arrested-62-times-for-trespassing-while-at-work/

                      Like

                    • LMAO

                      From their civic website:

                      Miami Gardens is a solid, working and middle class community of unique diversity. It is the largest predominantly African-American municipality in the State of Florida and boasts many Caribbean residents.

                      Demographics

                      Households: 29,262
                      Population: 105,414 (2004 estimate)
                      – African-American: 79%
                      – Hispanic: 16%
                      – Anglo: 4%

                      https://www.miamigardens-fl.gov/343/City-Demographics

                      Furthermore, the “Zero Tolerance Zone” program (http://miamigardens.elaws.us/code/coor_ch14_artiii_div1_sec14-59) was implemented by the citizens of Miami Gardens with the assistance of Vice-Mayor Barbara Watson (who is black) and Councilman Oscar Braynon II (who is also black).
                      https://web.archive.org/web/20170318141149/http://miamigardenspolice.org/volunteer.htm

                      In fact, the majority of the elected officials in Miami Gardens have been non-white since its inception in 2003.

                      So if there’s “systemic racism” at play in Miami Gardens, it’s being perpetrated by the black and Hispanic residents who live there.

                      Like

                    • So Ron, just so I understand you better, are you saying that because more hired minorities are police that systemic racism should be non-existent in those areas?

                      You don’t see the issue being related to policies and procedures? Your thought is that nobody can claim any form of racism because now we have black officers?

                      Is this really the deepest you go into complex issues or are you just kidding me right now to get a reaction?

                      Like

                    • No. What I am saying is that an ordinance against trespassing does not constitute empirical evidence of “systemic racism” — especially when said ordinance is passed in a town where the mayor, the deputy mayor, the city attorney, the entire city council, the police chief, the majority of the police force captains and 80% of the residents are black.

                      Would you also lay similar claims for “systemic racism” in cities where the majority of the police and citizens share the same skin tones? IOW, is it “system racism” when Asian officers arrest and detain Asian citizens? Or when white police officers arrest white citizens?

                      Nor is it sufficient to claim that the issue is more “complex” than that and call it a day. The onus falls upon those making the complaint to unravel that complexity for those who don’t see it.

                      “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

                      Like

                    • You Stated — “What I am saying is that an ordinance against trespassing does not constitute empirical evidence of “systemic racism”:

                      In Context — About a black man arrested 62 times by police for trespassing while at work Oo. A man arrested 62 times in full objection of the owner of the business who stated he was not trespassing Oo.

                      My Response — Your argument in this case is weak and not convincing. The mans rights are being violated. He has not committed a crime and yet he is being targeted by the police and arrested. Hmm… I wonder why Oo

                      You Stated — “80% of the residents are black.” (and a number of political officials)

                      In Context — Based on that you indicated that racism would be impossible

                      My Response — This is not a serious conversation or you really don’t understand the power of bad policies and procedures in relation to poor communities of color.

                      You Stated — “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

                      My Response — My post asked a question, it did not make an assertion. Quotes out of context mean nothing. You clearly do not believe racism is to blame for the difference between the two responses by the police in the post.

                      So why was one man shot the the other man not? What is your conclusion?

                      Like

  5. “So if you deem the term “race-baiting” inflammatory, that reflects more on your emotional state of mind rather than on mine. And the remainder of your comment amounts to little more than tone policing — i.e., it focuses on the manner in which my comment was delivered rather than addressing the content of the message itself.”

    I see the term “race-baiting” as inflammatory when used in a conversation like this where someone is being blatantly argumentative and sorely lacking empathy or compassion.
    I conceded your point above: Let’s say the facts have not been presented in the clearest manner possible. Let’s say, in this particular case, race wasn’t an issue and consequences had nothing to do
    with race. Let’s just say that. Let’s say you’re right about everything concerning this case.
    Now what?
    After that has been established, are you able to see where the anger, emotion, resentment, and suspicion is coming from to inspire this topic?
    Are you able to admit, with the emotionless objectivity you claim above, that regardless of THIS case, there is systematic, indoctrinated oppression aimed in higher numbers at those in the population who are perceived as “other” by law enforcement, never mind the rest of society.
    And if you are able to see that and understand that this topic was raised out of a growing awareness and anger at long-standing injustice and empathy and concern for those who are the target of it,
    are you then able to experience the same empathy and concern?
    If your argument has been resolved and put to rest, that you are correct about THIS case–can you lay that aside and join in this conversation in the spirit that it was begun, which, in my opinion,
    was not for the purposes of “race baiting” or to start a riot or to make anyone angry.
    An awareness which has long been reality for those who live with it daily is rising in the world, and that is what the discussion involves.
    It feels like your much repeated stance of “But this didn’t happen here,” or “these aren’t the facts here,” is overtly argumentative and swerving off topic, a topic which may make you feel
    uncomfortable. Are you only uncomfortable only with possibly unclear facts or are you also uncomfortable with the rising awareness and spotlight on oppression?
    As I said above, a different approach would have greatly softened whatever objection you had to the presentation, IE, “I have something to say about the facts of this case and how they were presented, and here they are, but I understand where you’re coming from, and although this case may have nothing to do with racism, that doesn’t excuse the many other cases that do concern and involve racism and I agree that there is a serious issue of systemic and institutionalized oppression which must be addressed.”

    Liked by 1 person

I want to hear what you have to say

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: