Re: trial
Topics: Rights, AA
19 Aug 1993
From: ervan
Nat says:
> Pete says the paper says:
> >
> >> In Los Angeles, the trial of two of the three suspects in the
> >> controversial beating case of trucker Reginald Denny begins today.
> >>
> >> Court observers have no idea how long the trial will last and the Los
> >> Angeles community is said to be divided on the possible outcome.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> [ the guilty can go free because of police error ]
The community is not divided on (nor even interested in) whether
or not the police acted legally. The community is divided on
whether or not the assailants should go free because they are black
and the victim is white. Everyone is assuming they have the right
people, they are guilty, and the police acted legally (wrt to
Reginald Denny).
It is AA carried to the extreme, because some white people are
accused of acting unfairly against some black people, any black
person, whether wronged or not, can extract vengence against
any white person, whether the malfeasant or not.
It is race above person. It is a denial of individual
responsibility.
> [ the police used improper procedure ]
Maybe, but irrelevant to the issue before us.
Shifting gears a little:
> [ Reginald Denny (truck driver beaten in LA riots) case and Rodney King
> trial shows that black males are subject to a harsher judicial system. ]
Whether or not the conclusion is true, the reason does not support
it. The police live by different standards and well they should.
Even I grant to police the right to initiate force to arrest
someone. I do not grant that right to ordinary citizens no matter
how just they think their cause. Defensive use of force is
another matter. This doesn't mean I excuse the police in the
Rodney King case either, only that they are and should be held
to a different standard.
I find it ironic too, that the police are being perfectly PC
and raising race consciousness to a high level by observing that
a disproportionate number, if not majority of, crimes are committed
by black males and therefore they concentrate on arresting
black males. If liberals want to punish all whites because
some are racist, why not punish all blacks because some are
criminals?
> [ Did the LAPD provide
> "equal protection under the law" as mentioned in the bill of rights? ]
That's the 14th amendment, not the Bill of Rights. Furthermore,
quoting it this context distorts its meaning. It does not mean
that everyone should have equal amounts of police protection
(however that might be defined). It means that laws cannot
capriciously single out certain individuals or groups. "Under"
should be "of", which changes the meaning somewhat.
Again, I find it ironic that most of the liberal program does
amount to applying different government standards, if not
exactly different laws, to different individuals and then
justifies it under the 14th amendment.
Home