Crime happens to every type of person, and is perpetrated by every type of person. What makes the false narrative of the knockout game—or any “black mob violence” story—crop up every year is the fact that some people will always believe the color of someone’s skin predisposes him to commit a crime. When a few YouTube videos are able to convince terrified white folks that young black people are dangerous, they may as well assume that all cats can play the keyboard.
Of course the knockout game is barbaric, but it’s not the epidemic the merchants of fear would have you believe.
That question begets another: How do police fail to file charges when an unarmed teen is shot for apparently no other reason than his appearance?
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Calls made to police show that a black teenager was terrified as he tried to get away from the white neighborhood watch volunteer who shot him, and that the volunteer was not defending himself as he has claimed, the teen’s family told The Associated Press on Saturday.
Sanford police released eight 911 calls late Friday. The neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, tells a dispatcher in the first call that he is following 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. He says Martin is running, but the dispatcher tells him not to follow the teen. …
The teen had gone to a convenience store to buy candy and was walking back to his family’s home in the neighborhood.
A 14-year-old boy was killed at a MARTA station over a cell phone he didn’t even have.
Rueben Hand was on his way home after watching the Peach Drop with friends, his aunt, Lena Barnes, told the AJC. But the high school freshman never made it to the train. His family says he died after his throat was cut with a knife.
I’m opposed to the death penalty but would gladly look the other way if an angry mob tracked down the monster responsible for this atrocity.
How in the hell did this happen at a MARTA station on a night when downtown was packed with visitors?
Scott Henry’s post on Fresh Loaf, “Clearing up confusion over Standard murder” clears up nothing. His only source is the cop who fed reporters misinformation regarding the details of John Henderson’s murder.
Based on that, and his own assumptions, Henry concludes “the press snafu over the Henderson murder was brought about by a combination of vague, inconclusive information offered by the police and a competitive news environment in which reporters race to make their stories as definitive as possible — often before all the facts are nailed down.”
Read Tim Eberly’s initial account of the murders — all the details are attributed to the cops. When Tim found out the facts were erroneous, he reported it before anyone else.
Scott Henry infers that the AJC’s reporting was sloppy, though he never bothered to contact the reporter. And for this he’s lauded by commenters on the Fresh Loaf blog and other sites for setting the record straight.
Reaching a conclusion based on the comments of one already discredited source hardly qualifies as “good journalism.”