White Middle-Schooler Beaten Unconscious by Group of Black Students

If the girl beaten on that bus were black, and her attackers were white, there would have been a discussion of "hate crimes." Civil rights leaders would begin the chorus of national soul-searching. If the races were reversed, this would not be treated as an isolated incident.

This is absolutely appalling and disgusting. Each and every one of these black girls should be arrested for a hate crime, malicious assault, and assault with intent to cause bodily harm along with many other charges.

People like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and even the president imo should have stood up and defended this white girl and wnet after each and every one of these black girls involved in this beating as well as the other beating on the train.

Tawana Brawley rape allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations

Tawana Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York. In 1987, at the age of 15, she received national media attention ...

Never forget what Al Sharpton truly stands for. The man is scum and should be behind bars.

even the president

Why the President? What the heck does the President have to do with this? Perhaps if you stated the governor then that would make more sense, but the president has nothing to do with matters like this. If the police and the district attorney do their job then there is no need for anyone to step in but them.

but the president has nothing to do with matters like this.

Like it or not he injected himself into "matters like this" early in his presidency with his "The police acted stupidly" remark and the whole "Beer Summit".

He rang a bell that can't be unrung.

He rang a bell that can't be unrung.

I disagree. The bell rang one time. No bell continues to ring incessantly for 4 to 8 years. No person has to answer for every thing black or every thing white that happens in the United States of America during their presidency.

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!

Yeah right.

It's quite funny that ONLY seems to be the case when it's someone YOU support.

That's OK continue to deflect, disguise, and dissemble, it doesn't change the truth.

I have never heard of so many people calling for the president to intercede in school fights and matters that have nothing to do with national secuirty. So, the President makes a statement about the cop acting stupidly. So friggin what. Henry Louis Gates knew the president personally and that's why the media asked him about it. There's nothing else there, man; damn.

You know, your entire retort back to me borders on the ridiculous, Kaz. I don't think this situation has come up before where I have been asked my opinion about whether President Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. should have interceded when someone got beat up or killed. it is not on a Presidential level, kaz. How friggin hard is that to understand?

It's quite funny that ONLY seems to be the case when it's someone YOU support.

That's OK continue to deflect, disguise, and dissemble, it doesn't change the truth.

There is rarely a chance to ever have a meaningful dialogue with you

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!

Yeah right.

because you are always rolling around on the floor and laughing your fat azz off when someone has a differnet opinion. Good grief, kaz. Grow up.

So, the President makes a statement about the cop acting stupidly. So friggin what. Henry Louis Gates knew the president personally and that's why the media asked him about it.

Not to mention, he got burned by that comment. Even if he did know someone involved in this case, it's insane to expect him to repeat a mistake.

it's insane to expect him to repeat a mistake.

Insane to most people; just not Garp. As in, "The World according to....

LOL.

it is not on a Presidential level, kaz. How friggin hard is that to understand?

Until the next guy(president) does NOT speak up about something like this when YOU want him to.

Then it will be on a presidential level.

What you don't seem to get, and probably won't even when it is laid out for you is this:

These types of acts are not decreasing in this country they are increasing.

They are increasing because contrary to popular belief these young folks are aware of what's going on around them and quite smart.

So when they see things like this happen, and then they find out that the consequences for actions like this are MINOR if they exist at all, that simply tells them that they are allowed to act this way whenever they wish.

Now an OPPOSITE message has been sent to a different group in this country. That message is that if you are NOT a "minority" and act out the government will come after you with everything it's got.

Please review the case in Pennsylvania before you tell me I'm full of it. They were acquitted at the state level and the feds jumped all over it and brought charges, because the offenders were "white" and the victim was an illegal alien.

No bell continues to ring incessantly for 4 to 8 years.

ROFLMAO! Unless it's the "It's Bush's fault" bell. We've heard that bell ringing steadily for going on four years now.

/snicker

ROFLMAO! Unless it's the "It's Bush's fault" bell. We've heard that bell ringing steadily for going on four years now.

/snicker

Not from me. /snicker.

Until the next guy(president) does NOT speak up about something like this when YOU want him to.

Then it will be on a presidential level.

Nope. I have never made a comment or a demand (silent or verbal) requesting any sitting or vacated president to speak up about anything as such. Never. I am not every black person or every human - I am an individual with individual thoughts. I would imagine YOU would consider yourself to be the same - an individual.

Please review the case in Pennsylvania before you tell me I'm full of it. They were acquitted at the state level and the feds jumped all over it and brought charges, because the offenders were "white" and the victim was an illegal alien.

did the President comment on that case? I did not hear about that. When did President Obama say anything about the white murderous thugs who killed that man?

Or is it when you say President - you really mean the DOJ? If that's the case then state the DOJ instead of the president.

If you want the DOJ to further prosecute those terrible kids who beat up that little girl then I agree fully agree. What they did was mean, vicious and criminal. Throw the book at the little thugs and throw them in the brig. They deserve whatever punishment they can get.

Lois

You know what?

Simply forget it.

YOUR group has managed to get the laws in this country twisted so that they benefit YOUR group(and ONLY minorities) and offer NO "equal protection under the law".

That's fine, y'all "won".

Just don't be surprised when there is some sort of backlash.

They are increasing because contrary to popular belief these young folks are aware of what's going on around them and quite smart.

So when they see things like this happen, and then they find out that the consequences for actions like this are MINOR if they exist at all, that simply tells them that they are allowed to act this way whenever they wish.

Are they increasing or are they just becoming more newsworthy? Gang fighting has been going on since the beginning of time. White kids, black kids, Asian kids, Hispanic kids... that mentality transcends race. These kids feel more powerful when they are with their friends.

Hell, just last week there was a gang of white kids (6 boys and 1 girl) in Chicago who ganged up on an Asian kid and beat him senseless. That was just as outrageous.

Hate crime or not..... I really could care less because as someone else pointed out, all crimes of violence are hateful.. My thing is - as long as these thugs are apprehended, vilified, prosecuted and thrown in the damn brig then justice has been served (IMO).

Just don't be surprised when there is some sort of backlash.

Kaz,

you know what? Grow up.

Are they increasing or are they just becoming more newsworthy?

Good question, and I suspect the answer is no.

Hell, just last week there was a gang of white kids (6 boys and 1 girl) in Chicago who ganged up on an Asian kid and beat him senseless. That was just as outrageous

I'm sure that "hate crimes" charges will be forthcoming.

you know what? Grow up.

I'm NOT the one looking for some sort of "revenge" for events that happened long before I was born.

I'm NOT the one looking for some sort of "revenge" for events that happened long before I was born.

neither am I.

That comment smells a tad racist to me and I never liked that smell very much.

Racist? haha More like in jest really. Stating an observation about a group doesn't make me or anyone else racist. Lighten up.

So why is this not being called a hate crime?

Probably because, if you click on the associated links, the girl called them a racial epithet and threw a shoe at them. It's terrible that she was beaten, and the other students obviously overreacted. At the same time, it's pretty hard to play the victim card when you start the fight by unleashing the N-word.

A hate crime is when the perpetrators target the victim because of some social group, such as race. This girl wasn't targeted because she was white, she was targeted because she said something stupid. Throw the book at them for not dealing with their anger correctly, but don't jump to "hate crime reverse racism!" cries without knowing the full story.

I didn't see anything in the article where the racial slurs where used. HOWEVER, if they were, by either or both parties, then YES, it should be treated as a hate crime.

But first and a formost it is a clear assualt. A gang assault to be more specific. Charges should be pressed, no matter what was said. Plain and simple.

I didn't see anything in the article where the racial slurs where used.

You didn't see them because American Thinker left that part out. American Thinker left that part out because it disrupts the idiotic narrative they're pushing. Click through the links they cite as sources, though, and you'll find it.

HOWEVER, if they were, by either or both parties, then YES, it should be treated as a hate crime.

The girl is the one who used the slur, and she didn't commit the assault. The black students reacted to her ugly words, but they weren't beating her because she was white. They were beating her because she had insulted them. No hate crime was committed here.

But first and a formost it is a clear assualt. A gang assault to be more specific. Charges should be pressed, no matter what was said. Plain and simple.

Agreed.

The girl is the one who used the slur, and she didn't commit the assault. The black students reacted to her ugly words, but they weren't beating her because she was white. They were beating her because she had insulted them. No hate crime was committed here.

This barely makes sense. If the girl was black and called them the n word, they wouldn't have done a thing, in all likelihood, because some black teens call each other the n word on a daily basis. Therefore, it was her whiteness that triggered the response to her words that ended with 7 of them beating on one.

AND, in any case, it is not proven that she said anything of the kind to 7 girls. That is their side of the story.

"Marion County deputies said there were 74 students on board when the fight erupted. School officials said the bus has capacity for 89 students, if students sit three to a seat.

Williams said the victim, a white female, entered the back of the bus, and was told she would have to stand. Deputies said she was then hit by a shoe.

Williams said that's when the victim uttered a racial slur, and several black students began beating her."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2012/january/367596/School-bus-beating-sends-Ocala-girl-to-hospital,-7-students-charged

Probably because, if you click on the associated links, the girl called them a racial epithet and threw a shoe at them.

Maybe you hurried through the material, because that's not what it says.

"Williams said the victim, a white female, entered the back of the bus, and was told she would have to stand. Deputies said she was then hit by a shoe."

The one hit by the shoe was the white victim. This is why she allegedly called them a name.

Therefore, it was her whiteness that triggered the response to her words that ended with 7 of them beating on one.

Her "whiteness" was a factor, sam, but she was not targeted for the beating for being white. The American Thinker poses it as if she was some poor white girl minding her own business and got jumped. That's simply not what happened. They threw a shoe, she threw one back, she called them a name, she got beat up. It was an argument that escalated; that's not a hate crime.

Maybe you hurried through the material, because that's not what it says.

Or maybe you did:

The victim said someone threw a shoe at her and she threw one back, according to an arrest report. (source)

So let's picture the scenario. Girl boards the bus, is confused, is told she has to stand. Some jackass throws a shoe at her. She gets mad, throws one back, and calls them a name. She gets beat up. Escalation. An argument got out of hand. Not a hate crime.

A hate crime is when someone is targeted specifically for her race. If she hadn't thrown a shoe back, if she hadn't used a racial slur, she likely would've been left alone. That means she wasn't targeted exclusively for her race. You could make the argument that the one who threw the first shoe committed a hate crime, since that counts as assault. The beating itself, though, was the product of escalation.

I'm not saying the students shouldn't be held responsible. I just find this shrill "white victimization" garbage tiring, especially from a bunch of people apparently too busy to bother reading the damn links. Yourself included, after you tried (and failed) to correct me on a point.

The victim said someone threw a shoe at her and she threw one back, according to an arrest report.

And right there is the difference.

Someone threw a shoe at her, she threw one back.

She utter a word, she gotten beaten down, and as you can see there will be PLENTY of folks who "justify" that beat down.

There was an incident that happened in my home town, an 18 yr old black male beat a 15 yr old white male unconscious, fractured his skull, caused brain damage, because he THOUGHT he heard someone utter that word in a school bathroom.

Every witness to the incident swears that the word was NOT said, but that was his defense, so he gets 6 months in the county jail and "anger management" classes for attacking someone that he outweighed by 75 pounds.

That is the ONLY defense necessary in these cases, just say that the person that was attacked uttered the dreaded "N" word and that's all there is too it, you can do whatever you want to that person.

I just find this shrill "white victimization" garbage tiring, especially from a bunch of people apparently too busy to bother reading the damn links. Yourself included, after you tried (and failed) to correct me on a point.

The girl was told she would have to stand when there were 15 empty seats on the bus, and then someone threw a shoe at her. I think she was well within her rights to throw the shoe back. You , for some reason, are trying to apportion equal blame for this crime, which you say happened because of 'escalation'. No, it happened because a couple of them decided to punch and kick her, and other cowards jumped in. At least two of these attackers were boys. One girl is said to have punched the victim in the face 10 to 15 times. Let's see what the girl says. If and when she says they said the word "white' to her, will you change your tune?

That is the ONLY defense necessary in these cases, just say that the person that was attacked uttered the dreaded "N" word and that's all there is too it, you can do whatever you want to that person.

Strawman. I'm not defending the attackers. They should be tried for assault -- or, if they're underage, they should be put through whatever system of discipline they have for minors who commit crimes in Florida. I just don't think it's a hate crime, because her race wasn't the spark that set off the assault. A slur was.

Maybe Florida prosecutors will disagree. The incident is only two weeks old, it probably hasn't even started going to trial yet. All this hand-wringing about how unfair it is that it's not being called a hate crime is premature. We don't know what it will be tried as, and the prosecution is the only body with the power to call it a hate crime or not. I doubt they will, but your victimization is jumping the gun.

American Thinker, and conservatives in general, are so enamored with this "liberal media ignores white victims" crap that it jumped on a story, didn't provide the full details, and apparently got plenty of people fired up over nothing.

You , for some reason, are trying to apportion equal blame for this crime, which you say happened because of 'escalation'.

No. Ultimately they're responsible for the worse offense. I'm saying that the black students did something, then she went a step further, then they went a step further still. Each of them went took turns stepping over the line, which by definition means that the blame can't be equal. That's why it's called escalation. Each step is higher than the last one.

Let's see what the girl says. If and when she says they said the word "white' to her, will you change your tune?

Why would I? I already conceded that the initial bullying (i.e. not letting her sit, throwing a shoe) was motivated by race. I even pointed out that throwing a shoe would count as assault, and could arguably be a hate crime. My point is simple: would the beating have taken place if she hadn't called them a racial slur? If the answer is no, then the beating wasn't a hate crime.

would the beating have taken place if she hadn't called them a racial slur?

Yet above you claim that by bringing YOUR argument to the forefront I was making a "strawman" argument.

You know just as well as I do that "excuse" is used way more often then that word is ever uttered in a situation.

We saw it a few years back in Baltimore when those teens attacked that woman on the bus.

That's a "standard" excuse that has been taught to these young folks and people like you that actually DEFEND their actions because they claim that word was uttered make things even worse.

Yet above you claim that by bringing YOUR argument to the forefront I was making a "strawman" argument.

No, I claimed you made a strawman when you falsely tried to pose my argument as justifying the students' behavior. From the very beginning, I have stated that they should be punished, and I've restated it repeatedly. I'm not sure how I can make my position any more plain.

That's a "standard" excuse that has been taught to these young folks and people like you that actually DEFEND their actions because they claim that word was uttered make things even worse.

Yet again, I restate: I am not defending them. They should be tried for assault or given whatever punishment is appropriate for minors. One of the links says the school's policy is to expel the students and move them to a different school, and that sounds like a good start.

If you honestly can't understand the difference between "they didn't commit a hate crime but they should be punished for assault" and "they should get off scot-free," then you should exit this discussion before you shove your foot further down your throat.

Yet again, I restate: I am not defending them.

You can "restate" that as many times as you wish to.

The plain and simple FACT is that you are trying as desperately as you can to shift the "blame" for the attack onto the victim and to "justify" the actions of the thugs.

The plain and simple FACT is that you are trying as desperately as you can to shift the "blame" for the attack onto the victim and to "justify" the actions of the thugs.

No, I'm saying that the sequence of events as presented in the news reports make it an assault, but not a hate crime. Honestly, how hard is that to understand?

Are you HONESTLY saying that this would have gone down the SAME way had the victim been "Black" also?

Are you HONESTLY saying that this would have gone down the SAME way had the victim been "Black" also?

No, I'm not. However, that isn't the bellwether for a "hate crime." A hate crime stacks on top of a regular charge when a factor like race was the motivator. So beating a gay man? Not a hate crime. Beating a man because he is gay? Hate crime.

This girl was not beaten because she was white. She was beaten because the argument escalated until the point that she made a racist remark. Being white may have started the bullying, it may have been the motivator behind throwing the shoe, but it wasn't the motivator for the beating. Therefore, the shoe-throw could arguably be a hate crime. The beating would not be.

Hate crime legislation is complex. It's not simply something you toss onto any race-on-race violence. It has specific guidelines, and if you don't know what those guidelines are -- and you clearly don't -- I'm not sure why you're trying to argue.

Being white may have started the bullying, it may have been the motivator behind throwing the shoe, but it wasn't the motivator for the beating. Therefore, the shoe-throw could arguably be a hate crime. The beating would not be.

You are just speculating. One of the accusers is the one who brought the n word into the account.

No, I'm saying that the sequence of events as presented in the news reports make it an assault, but not a hate crime. Honestly, how hard is that to understand?

I'm not sure we can know that.

The first shoe throw was an assault. If she was singled out to have a shoe thrown at her because she is white, it's a hate crime. However I suspect we'll probably never have conclusive evidence on it.

This girl was not beaten because she was white.

Believe that all you want. The ONLY person you are lying to is yourself.

Had the victim been "Black" there wouldn't have BEEN an incident.

Now if YOU can't see the "racial" motivation in that I feel sorry for you.

You are just speculating.

Of course I am. Everyone here is. I'm just pointing out that American Thinker has a motive to jump on a "reverse racism" story where I don't think it applies. They left out facts, and the more complete picture paints an image of a school fight that escalated.

The first shoe throw was an assault. If she was singled out to have a shoe thrown at her because she is white, it's a hate crime.

Yep, and I've been saying for several replies that the shoe-throwing may have been a hate crime. The beating, not so much.

Had the victim been "Black" there wouldn't have BEEN an incident.

Most likely. But that's not the criteria for a hate crime.

Had the victim been "Black" there wouldn't have BEEN an incident.

Not necessarily.

But that's not the criteria for a hate crime.

Apparently this doesn't meet the criteria based on the fact that the victim is caucasion and the attackers are black. How many times have we seen that scenario play out with no accusations of a hate crime, but if the positions are reversed the caucasions are already on their way to prison.

Apparently this doesn't meet the criteria based on the fact that the victim is caucasion and the attackers are black.

Did you not read the discussion at all?

I disagree with the term "hate crime" being used at all. The boys violently assaulted the girl, and they should be punished for doing so. I doubt they violently assaulted her out of love, so using the term "hate crime" is less than useless IMO.

Well statistics show otherwise.

You're exactly right, Lois. Well, except...don't you know that you and I beat that girl up, too? I mean, we're black.

You're exactly right, Lois. Well, except...don't you know that you and I beat that girl up, too? I mean, we're black.

@ Plants. Yep, it's either we were there in actuality or guilt by association. You know, "black guilt" that's always thrust upon us when a person "of color" does something wrong. Again, with that Borg mentality. /smh.

I feel the same way. I think races are equal but not monoculture. I feel this placating of blacks with things like crime, education, OOW births, fatherless homes ect.. has destroyed the topic discussion. God forbid anyone white say ANYTHING negative about blacks or black culture he or she is doomed to the defacto tag line of racist.

Furthermore, if equality is to exist BOTH sides have to have the same rules. That clearly isn't the case. White guilt and political correctness have stunted the discussion therefore stunting the solutions.

God forbid anyone white say ANYTHING negative about blacks or black culture he or she is doomed to the defacto tag line of racist.

Sad to say you don't even have to say anything to earn that tag now a days. The ONLY way to avoid it is to condemn your own and champion "minority" causes/issues.

Furthermore, if equality is to exist BOTH sides have to have the same rules. That clearly isn't the case.

It quit being about equality a long time ago IMO. It has since shifted to "payback" for things that happened mostly before any of us were born.

What do you think should happen to them?

They're white, so "hate crimes".

Give em 15 or 20 years.

Color or race be damned...

Sorry but it don't work that way.

Certain "special interest" groups have made sure of that. They have wanted a double standard and they have gotten a double standard. That was NOT my group that pushed for that.

They're white, so "hate crimes".

Right. Good. Fine. As I stated before, it is imposible to have a discussion with you. your sarcasm is always there, brimming over the surface. you must have a hard, terrible life to be so cynical, unpleasant and argumentative.

Certain "special interest" groups have made sure of that. They have wanted a double standard and they have gotten a double standard. That was NOT my group that pushed for that.

Funny how that "double standard" works and also that "color" thing! My husband can't even drive up the friggin street without being pulled over out of the blue by the police and then here comes the lies - "oh, I thought you had a busted tail light, but you didn't..... oh, your tags came up as dead... oh, your car looked suspicious... oh, you were driving slow, thought you may have been scouting for drugs in this nice area.. oh, are you loitering"? License and registration please. please step out of the car, sir. All bullshyt. Then come the apologies. These are questions he has been asked - and it's around our nice, pristine neighborhood.

Double standard my azz. A 53 year old man is subject to a police officer's whim just because of... WHAT? I'm just curious. My husband wears a suit and tie to work every day; he's clean shaven, hair trimmed, neat. Drives a decent car - not too expensive and not a hoopdie (sp?) either; regular car! There is no reason for him to be pulled over for bullshyt when he's not doing anything except for leaving or coming to our own neighborhood. He's been searched for nothing, all kinds of things. This happens to black men all the time. hmmm.

Give me a break with the double standard bullshyt speak.

That was NOT my group that pushed for that.

Your Group; not Your Group. WHATEVER, MAN! Sounds like kindergarten.

I'm out for the weekend. Peace!!

it is imposible to have a discussion with you. your sarcasm is always there, brimming over the surface

No sarcasm at all, simply facing reality in this country as it is now a days.

Funny how that "double standard" works and also that "color" thing! My husband can't even drive up the friggin street without being pulled over out of the blue by the police and then here comes the lies - "oh, I thought you had a busted tail light, but you didn't..... oh, your tags came up as dead... oh, your car looked suspicious... oh, you were driving slow, thought you may have been scouting for drugs in this nice area.. oh, are you loitering"? License and registration please. please step out of the car, sir. All bullshyt.

And that's different from me getting pulled over in a majority "Black" neighborhood where I was living at the time, with 2 main questions being asked "What kind of drugs are you here to buy/did you buy?" and when answered negatively the next one is "So you're looking for a hooker huh?". Then being pulled out of the car, being held at gun point, having my vehicle searched all the while being screamed at "Where are the drugs!!!".

Then come the apologies.

I don't know what THOSE are like I've NEVER heard them from a cop. Instead I'm told "Don't let me catch you around here again". Then when you ask how you are to avoid that when you live there you're told maybe you should be run in for being a smart azz.

A 53 year old man is subject to a police officer's whim just because of... WHAT? I'm just curious. My husband wears a suit and tie to work every day; he's clean shaven, hair trimmed, neat. Drives a decent car - not too expensive and not a hoopdie (sp?) either; regular car!

Well I'll be 53 in about 6 months, I drive a decent pickup, good tags, dress business casual when at work, jeans and a tank in the summer when not at work, and because my head is shaved and I've got tatt's I'm considered to be an ex-con by most of the cops I run into.

Because that fits their PROFILE for "white" guys.

Because believe it or not they have a different "profile" for each and every different group out there.

This happens to black men all the time.

Now THIS is sarcasm.

Then this tells me that the law needs to be changed so that ANYTIME someone "Black" is pulled over the ONLY thing that a cop is allowed(and required) to do is APOLOGISE and send them on their way. No matter WHAT the reason for them being pulled over in the first place is.

Better yet I think that a "Get out of Jail Free" card should be issued to EVERYONE who claims to be "Black" in this country and anytime they even talk to a police man they get their card stamped, get 10 stamps win the $10,000 prize and be issued a new card.

it is imposible to have a discussion with you. your sarcasm is always there, brimming over the surface

No sarcasm at all, simply facing reality in this country as it is now a days.

Funny how that "double standard" works and also that "color" thing! My husband can't even drive up the friggin street without being pulled over out of the blue by the police and then here comes the lies - "oh, I thought you had a busted tail light, but you didn't..... oh, your tags came up as dead... oh, your car looked suspicious... oh, you were driving slow, thought you may have been scouting for drugs in this nice area.. oh, are you loitering"? License and registration please. please step out of the car, sir. All bullshyt.

And that's different from me getting pulled over in a majority "Black" neighborhood where I was living at the time, with 2 main questions being asked "What kind of drugs are you here to buy/did you buy?" and when answered negatively the next one is "So you're looking for a hooker huh?". Then being pulled out of the car, being held at gun point, having my vehicle searched all the while being screamed at "Where are the drugs!!!".

Then come the apologies.

I don't know what THOSE are like I've NEVER heard them from a cop. Instead I'm told "Don't let me catch you around here again". Then when you ask how you are to avoid that when you live there you're told maybe you should be run in for being a smart azz.

A 53 year old man is subject to a police officer's whim just because of... WHAT? I'm just curious. My husband wears a suit and tie to work every day; he's clean shaven, hair trimmed, neat. Drives a decent car - not too expensive and not a hoopdie (sp?) either; regular car!

Well I'll be 53 in about 6 months, I drive a decent pickup, good tags, dress business casual when at work, jeans and a tank in the summer when not at work, and because my head is shaved and I've got tatt's I'm considered to be an ex-con by most of the cops I run into.

Because that fits their PROFILE for "white" guys.

Because believe it or not they have a different "profile" for each and every different group out there.

This happens to black men all the time.

Now THIS is sarcasm.

Then this tells me that the law needs to be changed so that ANYTIME someone "Black" is pulled over the ONLY thing that a cop is allowed(and required) to do is APOLOGISE and send them on their way. No matter WHAT the reason for them being pulled over in the first place is.

Better yet I think that a "Get out of Jail Free" card should be issued to EVERYONE who claims to be "Black" in this country and anytime they even talk to a police man they get their card stamped, get 10 stamps win the $10,000 prize and be issued a new card.

Well I'll be 53 in about 6 months, I drive a decent pickup, good tags, dress business casual when at work, jeans and a tank in the summer when not at work, and because my head is shaved and I've got tatt's I'm considered to be an ex-con by most of the cops I run into.

Because that fits their PROFILE for "white" guys.

Because believe it or not they have a different "profile" for each and every different group out there.

Standard profile for white guys. Okay, MY point is - the "Standard Profile for Black Guys" is "being black." That's the difference, buddy.

Why does a businessman with a white shirt, suit, tie, clean shaven, middle-age in a decent, mixed-race neighborbood be a targeted, stopped, harassed by the police? He has no tatts, no earrings in his ears; nothing. There is no reason for him to be pulled over. None. Yet, he is.

Therein lies the difference, buddy.

Then this tells me that the law needs to be changed so that ANYTIME someone "Black" is pulled over the ONLY thing that a cop is allowed(and required) to do is APOLOGISE and send them on their way. No matter WHAT the reason for them being pulled over in the first place is.

This would be a proper statement if the a BLACK person is being targeted JUST BECAUSE he is black. But, of course, you know that - you're just being... Um.....

again, WHATEVER MAN!

, MY point is - the "Standard Profile for Black Guys" is "being black." That's the difference, buddy.

Then I retract the sarcasm, and propose that ANYONE who happens to be "Black" should NEVER be pulled over, no matter WHAT the reason is.

Much less charged for ANY crime, no matter WHAT evidence there is.

There happy?

Then I retract the sarcasm, and propose that ANYONE who happens to be "Black" should NEVER be pulled over, no matter WHAT the reason is.

There happy?

Again: WHATEVER MAN!

I think if an innocent man is leaving out of HIS OWN F'ING NEIGHBORHOOD and does not fit any "real" criminal profile then Gotdammnit, YES, he should be left the "F" alone. A man should not be profiled simply because of his skin color. SIMPLY BECAUSE!!!! Do you understand THAT? I mean, damn!

and THAT's the point; period! Distort it, shyt on it - whatever you want to do because this conversation has taken a turn and I'm done. Last point: Innocent people are harassed every day due to their race ALONE and who do NOT look like a gotdamn potheaded thug, fresh out of prison, with a bald head and arms loaded with tatt-friggin-tooos.

THERE, HAPPY?!

Then I retract the sarcasm, and propose that ANYONE who happens to be "Black" should NEVER be pulled over, no matter WHAT the reason is.

Man, man...whew.