Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Kum by ya

But underneath the canopy of downtown trees, and near the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. bust on the Palafox Street median, about 100 people softly sang hymns about a time when black people were oppressed.
And that, the impromptu singers believe, continues today.What oppression of the black people are these protesters protesting? The new deadly force law recently enacted in Florida. This law, according to this report, guarantees that people will not be prosecuted for using deadly force against intruders on their property.

The protesters were quoted as saying, "(it) will lead to open war on black males."
"It's almost a way to eliminate people. Black men will be under the ground more than ever." Sounds to me like these people are openly admitting that black males are the most frequent intruders on other people's property. Following that logic, we should eliminate the death penalty and long prison terms also, so as not to discriminate against black males. One could logically extend these protections against punishment to the entire criminal class, excepting, of course, white Anglo-Saxon males (WASM's).

Why do these people always manage to turn almost every issue about which they disagree into a race thing? The race card gets played so often and is applied in so many issues that I think people have become numb to it. The most brazen and ridiculous example used was that by Susan Watson, president of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (surprise!). She a white female type person and asked the crowd (only 100 people, so this wasn't a million man deal) if they believed the law would be applied equally to her and a black man. The crowd shouted, "No". I would like to shout, "No shit!" I doubt that any person would treat a black man or a white man or a Mexican man or an Arab man or a Chinese man the same as a white female attorney for the ACLU. If the white female intruder doesn't turn out to be Aileen Wuornos, Ma Barker or Bonnie Parker, you would probably be correct to proffer unequal treatment.

Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the protest. Maybe what these people are saying is that a black man who uses deadly force against an intruder will not receive the same preferential treatment under the law as a white female attorney for the ACLU. I think that this is 2005 AD and that possibility is very slim. I also think that I do not misunderstand the purpose of the protest.

No comments: