Justice SHOULD be color blind.
'em
Posted on 11/07/2002 11:47:11 AM PST by Lassiter
Let's avoid offensive racial overtones in Carr trial
Add us to the list of people offended by a report of the Carr brothers being hanged in effigy -- not just because it's a tasteless prank that trivializes the death penalty and the tragedy of this case for all involved.
More offensive by far is how this stunt injected inflammatory racial overtones into a case in which race played no role.
A homeowner in west Wichita recently erected a display on his front yard showing two dummies -- in black face -- hanging by nooses from trees. A sign below the dangling bodies read "Carr Bros," referring to the two brothers found guilty Monday of the December 2000 killing spree that shocked this community.
We'll take the man at his word that his display was not racially motivated; he took it down after receiving complaints that it was offensive.
But how someone in this day and age could not understand that such a mock-lynching would be racially offensive is hard to understand.
For many black Wichitans, the display recalled a time not so long ago in this country when African-Americans were routinely intimidated, terrorized and lynched by racists.
We further deplore this stunt because it encourages the misguided notion (forwarded in many letters we've received) that this was a racially motivated hate crime. Prosecutors have clearly established that greed and lust -- not racial prejudice -- motivated Reginald and Jonathan Carr to choose their victims and commit these brutal crimes.
Wichitans are understandably emotional and angry about what the Carrs did to our community. They are understandably eager for justice.
Justice will be done.
But we don't need vigilante sentiments, race-baiting comments or ugly, vengeful glee. As this emotional trial reaches its conclusion, let's keep our emotions in check and work toward community healing, not hate and division.
And the Carr Brothers murders recalls a time in this country when White-Americans were routinely intimidated, terrorized and lynched by racist blacks.
And that time is NOW!
I just wish the lib that wrote this had been one of their victims instead of the decent people who were.
LOL!
Clam humor, I love it! :)
I can certainly imagine the outcry from the pig.
-archy-/-
I agree & didn't mean to take issue with you. I meant to say that if there was such a thing as a 'hate crime' opposed to other crimes, this is it.
You bet.
Justice SHOULD be color blind.
'em
On the other hand, mock lynchings are tacky. He should have given both the hanging dummies brief cases. Made one white and one black. Labeled them "trial lawyers." Then everyone in Kansas would have agreed and applauded, and no one would have claimed "discrimination."
Glad I could be of service.
Congressman Billybob
In NO WAY do I think murder is worse when it is white on black versus black on white.
I had not read the Eagle yet today so I didn't realize that this is an "Our View." In other words, Randy is writing the view of the entire editorial board.
To me, the issue is, what price are these guys going to pay for there horrible crime. I am also offended that the media thinks crimes like this that are white-on-black are somehow worse just because before we were all born blacks were once slaves in this country.
It is not important to my life to have effigies of criminals--any race--hanging in my neighbor's yard.
Frankly, I was more bugged at their editorial telling Bush to "govern from the middle, not the right." Excuse me but who gets to define "middle?" He should govern justly and honestly. He should keep the commitments he campaigned on because that represents the people's choice. The "middle" is found through the votes of the people's representatives, not through the intimidation of a few in positions of power intent on obstruction (read: Daschle and Leahy) or disinformation (read: most of the media). Bush has done exactly that, respecting the wishes of the people's representatives, even when it cost conservatives, when it was clearly unconstitutional (CFR), and when he really should have used his constitutional right to veto legislation.
The Eagle is preaching to the wrong team.
The media defines "middle" as "abortion until birth." That's never has been the middle, guys. If you want the middle, let's make it abortion until 20 weeks. The media would call that "far right." They clearly failed at math. The lefties are shaking in their lesbian boots, fearing Congress will pass a partial birth abortion ban again, and this time we have a Prez. who will sign it. Give me a break.
Furthermore, when Clinton received only 49% of the vote, I don't remember everyone calling on him to govern from the middle. Why? They saw him as middle. Back then 49% equaled a mandate.
Besides abortion, it's the left trying to make sweeping "progressive" changes. The right has been fighting for status quo - just don't make things worse, and fix what the left messed up - for a long time. So it's the left we should be scared of.
I'd like to take the two negroes who dared to do this and spend about six months killing them in the most awful way I can think of, then send their miserable asses to the hospital to get fixed right up so I can do it again. And again. And again.
>growling<
Must of been one of those Boeing transplants from Washington State. :`)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.