As difficult as it is (and convenient for trouble makers) we should make an effort to view these incidents as separate matters, with separate facts and individuals. It is, IMO, very lazy thinking to conclude incidents with very little in common, except for the race of the victim, as being "proof" of something or other.
I thought the jury in Simi Valley got it wrong. At some point, those cops were just teeing off on Rodney King for sh*ts and giggles. I thought the jury in the "loud music" case got it right. Who in h*ll shoots up a car full of teenagers in a 7/11 parking lot because he doesn't like their musical choices? Despite a full court press from the MSM, the Zimmerman jury got it right.
Since I believe grand jury indictments shouldn't be handed up to placate a mob, it seems more likely than not that the grand jury in St. Louis got it right. Too much ambiguity. Too many conflicting witness statements. A case reeking with reasonable doubt.
The Garner video tape is very ugly. And while I fully support "broken windows" policing (murders in NYC down from over 2400 annually to fewer than 400, and the vast majority of those whose lives were saved don't live in Scarsdale), this one looks excessive. And so does the tape of the 12-year old shot to death in Cleveland.
I also thought a criminal jury got it wrong in the case of a former NFL star accused of killing two white people But he was acquitted, and that ends it.
it seems to me we should look at these episodes as discreet events and try to base our opinions on the facts, and not prejudice. And try to avoid fitting those opinions into already existing theories.
