Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is outrage over black on black crime. As a Black woman, I'm outraged. Most of these crimes involve criminals involved in gang and/or drug activity. There are many outreach, Big Brother etc programs to target at risk youth. Unfortunately, you can't save them all and many fall into the wrong crowds for acceptance, quick money, etc.
There will ALWAYS be a great outpouring of outrage when it involves innocent victims. It is especially more of a problem when that suspect is known and not arrested.
Your premise would be valid IF these murders went unsolved and/or the suspects were known and not apprehended. This is not the case. Although the crime is terrible and I wish it would end, there is *some* sense of justice because the suspects are arrested, convicted and jailed.
There are literally thousands of unsolved murders every year. I get your point, but it doesn't quite close the loop on your thought process in my view.
If there were "outrage," wouldn't there be as much or concern (ie. rallies and marches) as there is in the Trayvon Martin case? I can't recall a single rally against black-on-black crime in recent years. Maybe you can point me to the outrage and how it's being channeled?
Actually these type crimes are not as rare as one may think. It is no different than missing child cases. They happen all the time but only certain ones get the attention of the national media. Trying to answer your question is more complex than you think. I presented this same question to a friend of mind and he gave me some food for thought. He asked why do we not see people being arrested for meth on national TV. Why do we not see meth labs being raided. When it was crack we were bombarded with images but we get nothing when it comes to meth. The only difference between the two is crack is considered a black drug while meth is used mostly by whites. The effects are the exact same but one was covered and the other was not. Why is this.
I agree 100%. Folks want to have the "Why don't blacks care about b/b crime", yet they don't want to have a discussion about:
-Missing white children getting more media attention
-Missing white women getting more media attention
-Meth labs being raided
Perhaps the reason why you don't think blacks care is because the news doesn't cover these stories. I know of several neighborhood watch programs that are working to try to stem the violence in their neighborhoods. I also know of many non-profit orgs that target at risk youth. But those stories don't garner ratings, so they don't get aired.
There is outrage over black on black crime. As a Black woman, I'm outraged. Most of these crimes involve criminals involved in gang and/or drug activity. There are many outreach, Big Brother etc programs to target at risk youth. Unfortunately, you can't save them all and many fall into the wrong crowds for acceptance, quick money, etc.
There will ALWAYS be a great outpouring of outrage when it involves innocent victims. It is especially more of a problem when that suspect is known and not arrested.
Your premise would be valid IF these murders went unsolved and/or the suspects were known and not apprehended. This is not the case. Although the crime is terrible and I wish it would end, there is *some* sense of justice because the suspects are arrested, convicted and jailed.
Even when a suspect is caught and charged the Black community appears to place far more emphasis on those killed or harmed by police or whites.
There are literally thousands of unsolved murders every year. I get your point, but it doesn't quite close the loop on your thought process in my view.
If there were "outrage," wouldn't there be as much or concern (ie. rallies and marches) as there is in the Trayvon Martin case? I can't recall a single rally against black-on-black crime in recent years. Maybe you can point me to the outrage and how it's being channeled?
Unsolved means no suspects. What would you have folks do? If there is no suspect, the only thing that can be done is to continue to look for the criminal. Unfortunately, the police have no vested interest in keeping these type of cases open.
I gave you info on orgs that work with targeting at risk youth. Again, these murders usually involve criminals. That would be like expecting Italians to hold marches against mafia violence. If you live a dangerous life, you sometimes pay the ultimate price. That's just the way life goes.
What exactly would a march against b/b violence achieve? There is no "suspect" to arrest. Instead, the work is done "on the ground" hoping to stem the tide of youth who join gangs and/or turn to a life of crime.
This case is entirely different. The march is for a specific purpose (arrest a known suspect). I believe that if Zimmerman had been arrested, most of us wouldn't have even heard of this case. It is the negligence (and suspected racism) of the Sanford PD that is causing so much outrage. Surely, you see the difference.
Actually these type crimes are not as rare as one may think. It is no different than missing child cases. They happen all the time but only certain ones get the attention of the national media. Trying to answer your question is more complex than you think. I presented this same question to a friend of mind and he gave me some food for thought. He asked why do we not see people being arrested for meth on national TV. Why do we not see meth labs being raided. When it was crack we were bombarded with images but we get nothing when it comes to meth. The only difference between the two is crack is considered a black drug while meth is used mostly by whites. The effects are the exact same but one was covered and the other was not. Why is this.
Personally, I believe the answer is pretty easy. Crack in its earliest days was a new drug with devastating effects and it was largely an urban drug. News cameras in urban settings is hardly earth-shattering. Most camera crews are a few moments away from the crime scene.
Conversely, methanphetomine is just as bad as crack but it's largest consumer base is in rural areas. News cameras in rural areas where most meth is cooked and distributed does not generate the interest. I have a few friends who are news reporters for local and national stations and i'm quite positive that none of them are rushing to OneStopLightVille to cover meth drug violation.
I see your point, but i'm not sure it's entirely valid when put in context.
Yeah, you're right. Zimmerman didn't admit to killing Trayvon in self-defense.
He's admitted to killing him. That said, your right to stand your ground is gone when you confront someone. You're not supposed to be able to just go get a gun in Florida and walk up to someone, start a confrontation and then shoot them when they make you concerned for your safety. That's covered in the law.
The problem here is that the police on site made errors and didn't leave this for a jury to sort out. They decided not to arrest him because of that law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
