Hold on there. This man is saying that her relative was not “lynched” because he was only he was arrested by a sheriff and then *beaten to death on the courthouse steps while allegedly resisting arrest while handcuffed*.
And this is supposed to be a lie because the man wasn’t HANGED?
M dictionary, the venerable Webster’s Fifth, defines “lynch” thus:
To inflict punishment, especially death, upon, without forms of law, as when a mob captures and harms a suspected person.”
To call her a liar because her relative wasn’t hanged is just plain ignorant, ignorant as well as petty and mean. Either you don’t know what the meaning of the word “lynched” is, or you do and don’t care, because you get to insult the woman some more.
Reread the article.
“And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man.” - Ms. Sherrod
Are you saying that the truth doesn’t matter? Are you saying that a public official doesn’t have to be accurate in discussing historical incidents involving murder?
Well, I guess our law enforcement officers shouldn’t worry about whether or not a person was murder by way of drowning, or stabbing, or being thrown off of a cliff, or shot. All we need to know is that the victim was murdered. After all, who needs the facts? /s