Remember back in the other threads (like metoo movement threads and threads about rapists who are white guys), Derec and Loren talk about defendants as innocent until proven guilty?
In this case it is the cops who are (potential) defendants. And thus they deserve presumption of innocence. Of course, many posters here have already decided it was "murder".
...and how those white men are victimized because they haven't had a trial yet, like we're a court that must presume innocence no matter what when we write on the Internets? Then I say, "why don't you call black men innocent until proven guilty?" Well, here we go again...
I have called black men innocent until proven guilty. One of the cops who killed St. Stephon is black for example. And I have argued against prejudging a black college student (likely falsely) accused of rape at FSU a few years ago. And I supposed the
five innocent black college students falsely accused of rape at Hofstra. This has nothing to do with race.
I am reminded of the Professor Gates incident as I read posts about this one. Remember the phone call to 911 that some guy was trying to break into a house. He had suitcases and coming back from vacation.
Gates could have handled it differently. As I recall he did have to force his door open, which of course looked suspicious to a neighbor. When police came to investigate, Gates was belligerent and immediately played the race card even though the issue could have been resolved in about 10s by him showing his damn id. Gates had (has?) a chip on his shoulder about race.'
As you said, he was coming home from vacation. Wouldn't he want police to investigate potential break-ins while the house was unoccupied? Wouldn't he want his neighbors to report potential break-ins to police while the house was unoccupied?
So how does a phone call prove his guilt? Maybe. Maybe he tried to break into a car. Or maybe it was his own car like the black guy taking out his own garbage had someone call police on him. Then he took a shortcut back to his house. Or maybe he was avoiding police. Maybe.
Who was taking out garbage?
Also, there was no shortcut (look at the damn map, I post stuff for a reason!), so let's quit with that particular apologetics. And no, a phone call does not prove guilt. But police still have to investigate. And if you run, you increase your chances of things going south.
And lastly, he broke
windows of several cars and a house. That is not consistent with the apologetics that he was trying to get into his own car (and you would not do it by breaking the window anyway).
Sacramento Bee said:
Police said two items that could be the "tool bar" that deputies in the helicopter saw were recovered from near the broken sliding glass door in the neighbor's yard: a cinder block and a piece of aluminum similar to what might be used for a gutter.
On Monday, police said Clark used the tool bar to shatter a sliding glass door one house away from where he was shot. Police also said in a release that they believe Clark broke the windows of at least three nearby vehicles.
And note Stephon's criminal record. He has a history of stealing shit. He was just released from prison a month before his death.
Derec and Loren sure are certain this black male was guilty, though.
Given the totality of the evidence, it is very likely. Of course, had he survived he'd still enjoy presumption of innocence and would have his day in court. But the same should apply to police.
Just like how Loren said Trayvon was breaking into houses. You won't hear any backpedaling or apologies for no presumption of innocence. Just raw, unadulterated inconsistency.
Trayvon did likely break into a house in Miami. That's where he got that jewelry school police officers found on him.
Btw, Don2, are you black? I am asking because Toni thinks whitey has no "right" to refer to black people by their first names. She wants you to say "Mr. Martin" or else you are "racist".