Black Juror Blamed for Mistrial in Case Against Drug Dealer
| AR Articles on Bizarre Racism Charges |
|---|
| Racism Everywhere (Aug. 2000) |
| More Phantom Racism? (Oct. 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Bizarre Racism Charges |
| More news stories on Bizarre Racism Charges |
Johnnie “Bro” Martin won round one, and angry jurors blamed a single black juror who accused the others of racism—the juror that a federal judge wouldn’t remove despite prosecutors’ pleas last week.
The drug dealer, accused of moving his ring from Boston to Knoxville, defended himself in U.S. District Court against plotting to kill a witness and heading up a network that wiretaps indicated trafficked $500,000 a month worth of cocaine. The ring also sold marijuana and Ecstasy, prosecutors allege.
The jury split along racial lines, and U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips declared a mistrial late this afternoon.
{snip}
Jurors declined to be identified as they left U.S. District Court late this afternoon, but several said the lone black juror on the 12-member panel repeatedly said that her sister, who is in prison in Mississippi on a drug conviction, had been framed by police. They said the woman accused white jurors of being racist.
{snip}
The lone holdout refused comment as she walked out of court alone. The remaining jurors, all white, left as a group.
“She made a mockery of the system,” another juror said.
Prosecutors attempted last week to have the holdout removed from the jury because she didn’t reveal during the jury selection process that the police agency involved in the trial charged her daughter with peddling pot in 2006.
{snip}
On Thursday, the panel sent another note signaling a deadlock. This note, however, raised the specter of claims of racism as a bone of contention. Martin, who is black, had argued in closing arguments that he was the victim of a racist judicial system.
{snip}
Plowell said all potential jurors were asked during jury selection if any relatives or close friends had ever been arrested. While admitting a sister was imprisoned on a drug conviction in Mississippi, the woman insisted she had no quarrel with the judicial system.
Plowell said she and Jennings learned Friday that the woman did not reveal that her daughter had been arrested in 2006 by KPD on charges including possession of a shoe box full of marijuana. The female juror posted her daughter’s bond. That charge was dropped a year later. It’s not clear why, and Plowell said it did not matter that the daughter was not convicted.
“We would have wanted to question (the juror) about her feelings about the KPD,” Plowell argued. “This material misrepresentation goes to her qualifications as a juror.”
Martin countered that there was no proof that the juror was biased against KPD.
“This is unprecedented,” he said of prosecutors’ move to have the woman removed from the jury. “I feel it would be a miscarriage of justice to (remove) the only black juror.”
Phillips opined that there was “no evidence of misconduct on the part of any juror in this case.”
He noted the woman revealed her sister’s drug conviction. He did not address, however, Plowell’s complaint that the woman failed to reveal her daughter’s arrest by KPD.
Instead, Phillips chastised the News Sentinel for reporting a racial division among the jurors.
{snip}
The News Sentinel did not suggest that the black juror was the cause for the panel’s deadlock. The newspaper reported the racial make-up of the jury because claims of racism were, according to note, part of the divide among the jurors.
{snip}
(Posted on March 11, 2008)
Comments
Just more black jury nullification. Doesn’t matter anymore. The die is caste anyway. This all has to be straightened out in another way now.
Tom Iron…
Posted by Tom Iron at 5:54 PM on March 11
The judicial system is racist alright, but unfortunately it’s racist against the white race. Whites who commit crimes are much more likely to get caught/arrested for it.
Posted by at 6:04 PM on March 11
Apparently the drug dealer was a relative??? Of course blacks will stick with blacks…look at the O J trail that was such a travisty of justice….but the blacks continue to get away with murder, rape, robberies…all because some black on the jury can relate to them in one way or the other….sickening isn’t it?
Posted by lydia at 6:08 PM on March 11
When the depfendant is black, blacks always twist reality into a distortion to justify their “doubt” as to the defendant’s guilt.
I personally experienced that in Los Angeles back in the early ’80s. The myth that “jurors come through on the side of justice without personal bias” is just that, a myth. It’s more pronounced among minorities, but it exists in everyone. We’re fooling ourselves to believe otherwise.
Posted by at 6:12 PM on March 11
Politically correct big-city mayors love to promote more cops as a crime solution, but all the cops in Knoxville wouldn’t have done any good, because all their work has been flushed down the drain thanks to one racist black juror.
Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:14 PM on March 11
The war against drugs is about a desirable as the Prohibition.Instead of spending tens of billions to incarcerate and persecute drug users and dealers, we should have a policy something like European countries,which is to try to curb drug usage without resorting to such extreme measures.If an individual cannot control their drug habit, then it is only their own fault,and no one else should be blamed.
Posted by Peejay in Frisco at 6:19 PM on March 11
Imagine that?
Posted by Trisket at 6:53 PM on March 11
The case of a murdered coed at Eastern Michigan University ended in a mistrial after one black juror, a woman, refused to convict. Her reasoning, according to her statement to the press, was that “there were too many black men already in prison”.
Her beloved predator, a local, murdered the white girl in her dorm room by strangulation, and then masturbated on her dead body. This was from the court transcript. All evidence pointed to him to include DNA (obviously), but his black lawyer argued that he had consenual sex with the girl, and she was murdered later by someone else.
A filmclip on the local news showed the predator clapping and smiling next to his lawyer after the verdict. I don’t know where the case is now, but a retrial is due soon, I suppose.
AMREN readers may have read this account, but the other part of this story was that for about a year, the university covered up the crime. They had the suspect, but did not act on it until the victim’s family got involved and persisted!
The university’s excuse was that they didn’t want to create fear on campus. The university is in Ypsilanti, MI., a small chocolate city where crime has always been over the top.
Posted by Proactive at 6:57 PM on March 11
typical
Posted by cartman at 7:09 PM on March 11
Holy frijole! What if someone like that gets on one of the Channon Christian juries?
Posted by at 7:16 PM on March 11
These people will be the ruin of whatever is left of our court system. Already in places like Baltimore state deals are the norm because prosecutors cannot let cases go to trial because of blacks on the jury that will under no circumstances convict a black defendant. I think of the white female student who was murdered in her dormroom at Eastern Michigan. The lone black on that jury voted not to convict and said it was because she wouldn’t send another black man to jail.
Posted by Eric at 7:45 PM on March 11
Whites need to start doing the same thing.
Posted by at 7:46 PM on March 11
And if the drug dealer ran for president 90% of blacks would vote for him because he is black.
Posted by NorthAmericanWhiteMan at 7:49 PM on March 11
The prosecuter should have not selected this juror based on her past history of relatives with drug convictions. The judge also should have removed her due to this prejudice. Finding black jurors that do not have ties to criminal behavior is probably impossible.
Posted by pgh at 7:58 PM on March 11
Screw the black african racist woman. This is another victory for white folks who are educated by the real and present actions of black african racists like this woman who supported the black racist drug dealer only because of the color of his skin. Shame on her!
Posted by Elrey Jones at 9:15 PM on March 11
I just wish that gun owners would do this when people are tried for “illegal possession” of firearms. Whites have allowed the courts and the-powers-that-be to eviscerate their ability to defend themselves against the predations of the crime-prone minority groups, I’m afraid.
Posted by at 9:38 PM on March 11
I’m more surprised that a black person showed up for jury duty than anything in this article.
Posted by Patrick at 9:39 PM on March 11
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but wasn’t there a lone White juror on the jury in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, and didn’t the remainder of the jury get her to ‘snap-to’ so-to-speak? Usually when there’s a lone White juror on an otherwise all-Black or mostly all non-White jury in a criminal case with the defendant a Black, the lone White almost always acquiesces to the verdict that the others ‘want’. Otherwise he or she is badgered, harassed and ganged-up on by the others and labeled ‘racist’ by the other non-Whites on the jury. Very few White people would have the gumption to stand up for their principles in a situation like that - and I can understand that completely - White’s are deathly afraid of the label of ‘racist’.
God-forbid you are a White person accused of a crime in a locale with non-Whites on a jury. You’d be almost a certain bet to be convicted; that is, what few Whites ARE convicted of crimes today. As we all know the DOJ figures are very misleading - including Hispanics in the White crime total. I believe this is done for a purpose, and that purpose is to conceal even more, the incredibly low level of White crime today. But of course, when there’s even the tiniest hint of racism in a crime ‘allegedly’ perpetrated by a White or Whites it is broadcasted endlessly. There are so few White on non-White crimes today that hoaxes have to be perpetrated to continue the ‘agenda’ of lambasting Whites for every problem known to man.
‘Awake in NY’
Posted by Awake in NY at 9:39 PM on March 11
One of the major issues American face, as whites become a minority, is that most black people are incapable of being color-blind and this makes a big difference in a jury situation. In a case that has racial implications (where the defendant is black and the victim white, for example) whites will typically be impartial. Blacks will often side with their own no matter what. I don’t know if a majority of blacks are this way or only a large minority but, either way, it’s a serious issue.
Posted by jewamongyou at 10:04 PM on March 11
A detail to straighten up regarding that Eastern Michigan University coed murder: The defense’s argument was that his client found her strangled as he walked down the dorm hallway and merely masturbated on her corpse, finding the scene sexually stimulating. The brutha’s lawyer is basically saying his client is a necrophile.
Posted by Proactive at 11:03 PM on March 11
Good. This is the only way some white people learn. They need this stuff shoved right down their throat.
Posted by Tim at 11:12 PM on March 11
Black jurors regularly practice “jury nullification”, particularly in cases of black on non-black crime. O.J. was one of the few times it got any general attention. But this happens daily in local cases you never hear about. Such as the Sarah Faulks case in Kansas City Kansas, where two black carjackers shot dead a 17 year old white girl waiting in a car outside a grocery store with her baby. The two black males unceremoniously threw her lifeless bleeding body out on the parking lot and took off on a 30 minute joy ride with the white baby in the back seat. Black jurors refused to convict the black killers of Sarah Faulk of murder. The white jurors reported comments from the blacks to the effect that “there are too many brothers in prison”.
This practice is widely encouraged by black supremacist law professors at law schools across the country. It even has a name and is studied as a legitimate discipline, advocating black jurors to disregard the law: “Critical Race Theory”.
Posted by at 11:33 PM on March 11
This just goes to show what happens when egalitarianism (the myth of) is put to the test: 11 reasonably high-IQ people make a decision based on common sense; the 12th low-IQ person makes a decision based on “emotion”, more exactly an “emotion” that is the result of 40 years of brainwashing perpetrated by post Civil Rights era cultural marxists.
Sickening as usual.
Posted by from New Orleans at 11:49 PM on March 11
Must be a recycled black bigot from the O.J. trial; melanin is thicker/ blacker than the ” truth “.
Posted by Michigan patriot at 12:22 AM on March 12
Jury nullification shouldn’t be allowed. Why should one person be able to frustrate the will of eleven others? Why do jury verdicts have to be unanimous? WHY? Tell me one other thing, political election, business dealing, etc, that has to be unanimous? They should make it something like, 9-3 or something like that, equals conviction.
Posted by at 12:25 AM on March 12
It just shows that multicultural societys have never worked and will never work. The problem is being solved by the elimination of whites in the world. Who can blame whites for not having children. Theres no hope for any kind of fairness or justice in a world like this. Who did this?
Posted by at 12:50 AM on March 12
My mom was on a jury that went through this same scenario. The lone black woman was refused to deliberate or even explain why she wanted to acquit! She just kept saying over and over, “I just don’t think he’d do that” with no further explanation.
The accused was a 25 yr old black male on trial for robbing a pizza delivery driver with reams of evidence against him including dozens of calls to his friends from the victim’s cell phone. He had done several prior stints in jail for robbery and car theft and had gotten out on probation a few weeks before this latest crime. He had other warrants for his arrest, etc. Not exactly the kind of person ANYONE would think “just wouldn’t do that.”
The rest of the jurors spend 2 hours trying to get the black woman to discuss the case, but she just sat back with her arms crossed over her chest and glared at everyone. They sent a note to the judge stating that one juror refused to deliberate, but he made them continue. Finally, a white male on the jury lost his temper and told the woman in no uncertain terms that he wasn’t going to be bullied by her and if she didn’t want to deliberate she’d better be prepared to spend the rest of the week sitting in that chair. Her eyes opened wide, and then she promptly changed her mind and voted to convict!!
The jury was still a bunch of liberals, however, so they gave the guy a light sentence of 6 yrs in spite of his long track record (guidelines said 5 to 20 yrs). When the verdict was announced the thug’s mom and sisters went into ghetto drama mode: loud moans, crying “my baby!”, fake-fainting, etc. But, at least that’s one more thug off the street for a few years. I think the whole experience was an eye-opener for my mom…
Posted by Jill at 1:11 AM on March 12
You’re right, Elrey. I didn’t think of that important point you made.
This is another public lesson for idealistic whites in regard to black ghetto “reasoning” as well as a warning to whites to avoid black communities as much as possible.
A trait of complete corruption in any person is when they become that which they most despise. Blacks are forever whining that they don’t get a fair trial if the outcome doesn’t suit their agenda which is, of course, the aquittal of anyone black, as long as there was a white victim.
Keep this event in mind, white folks. You could eventually fall victim twice black assailants. The first after you’re assaulted and then by black jurors.
Posted by Proactive at 1:15 AM on March 12
“Finally, a white male on the jury lost his temper and told the woman in no uncertain terms that he wasn’t going to be bullied by her and if she didn’t want to deliberate she’d better be prepared to spend the rest of the week sitting in that chair. Her eyes opened wide, and then she promptly changed her mind and voted to convict!!”
Then it looks like one lesson here may be that if you are called to jury duty, be prepared to stay the course, dig in your heels and be stubborn as hell. I think when faced with the possibility of having to be there for a week, a lot of people would cave in like that lady did.
Posted by at 3:34 AM on March 12
A search in Google for “Sarah Faulks” and murder turns up no results. So this is an example of imaginary anti-white racism.
Posted by at 4:56 AM on March 12
Racism by blacks is never called that.
Posted by at 6:29 AM on March 12
I’ll bet if they had an all Black jury, they would have convicted this guy. I know quit a few good Blacks that don’t put up with drug dealers and wouldn’t put with this silly woman. It seems that every time you have one or two Black on a jury,and it’s usually a women, they get this us against them mentality.
I would trust a man, Black or White, to up hold the law, before I would a woman. My wife was on a jury and it was two women, one Black one White, that stopped the death penalty for a White couple that killed an old White guy and stole his car.
Posted by Drifter at 6:34 AM on March 12
So, why should this suprise anybody. Blacks generally are racially cohesive and will follow each other to their mutual destruction. It appears that the idea of consequence has not registered with the majority of them but rather theirs is a lifestyle of impulsive behaviors.
Posted by at 7:03 AM on March 12
The irony is, of course, that the policy of acquitting the guilty that many blacks pursue only recoils and backfires on the blacks themselves, as black criminals prey heaviest on their own kind.
Posted by Kenelm Digby at 7:51 AM on March 12
This smacks of the presidential race. Obama could do anything and still get votes from blacks. That’s all that matters to them,
and I think we can all be afraid. He’s an open borders man no matter what he says about securing the borders. I think we’ll wonder why we thought it was bad under Bush. Obama is going to out-illegal him in every way.
Posted by June at 8:56 AM on March 12
If the situation was reversed…..white defendant, white juror of an otherwise all black jury, she would have immediately been removed.
This is the problem with our system of justice. It’s vulnerable to activist judges. Because of this, their power will eventually be severely restricted (like it hasn’t already by mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines).
Posted by at 9:11 AM on March 12
Of course it was racism… everyone KNOWS Blacks don’t do crimes, right? Well try this article — the link is at the end if you want to read the whole story:
2 Houston oficers indicted for alleged bogus Katrina evacuee camp
12:12 AM CDT on Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Associated Press
HOUSTON — A grand jury indicted two Houston police officers Tuesday on charges alleging they billed the Red Cross $160,000 to operate a two-week basketball camp for Hurricane Katrina evacuees that only lasted two days.
HPD
Kirshondra Richardson, left, and Tracie Bell are accused of stealing money given by the National Red Cross and administered by the local Urban League office.
Patrol officer Tracie Denise Bell and Kirshondra Richardson, a probationary officer in her first year with the department, allegedly claimed the June camp had 310 attendees when only 10 actually participated, prosecutors said.
Both of have been relieved of duty and suspended with pay, Houston police spokesman John Cannon told the Houston Chronicle in its Tuesday online editions. Bell and Richardson could not immediately be reached for comment.
Both are charged with theft of more than $100,000, a second-degree felony with punishment ranging from probation to 20 years in prison if convicted.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou080311_tj_katrinacamp.462abeab.html
Posted by Fed Up at 10:23 AM on March 12
I just wish that gun owners would do this when people are tried for “illegal possession” of firearms.
A gun owner would never be let anywhere near a jury that was trying a case like that. Ever heard of voir dire? As Vin Suprynowicz says, that’s French for “jury tampering.”
Posted by qwerty at 10:25 AM on March 12
“Black Juror Blamed for Mistrial in Case Against Drug Dealer”
Another sign of the idiocy and immorality of our times? What’s next after the ‘lottery’ in each state? Public betting on the outcome of trials? Inmates put on a reality TV show like ‘Survivor’?, ‘Jury Swap’? How can the paper print this? Doesn’t this endanger our justice system? You’re to be judged by a jury of your peers not by public pressure exerted by the media. I have to wonder if the defendant is some kind of conservative or ‘white supremacist’. Perhaps he’s a christian figure of some kind. That would explain it.
Posted by at 10:38 AM on March 12
Actually, they do everything they can to keep whites, especially males, from serving in a trial. When I was still living in NY I was always called for jury duty and never picked. The defendents were minorities of course, as were in many cases their lawyers. One time was so blatant that it summed up what it was all about. Some black guy held up a cab driver. During voir dire, after a lot of pointless and sometimes mildly baiting questions from the black defense attorney, the judge announced “The following jurors are excused…” and as a group every white male there, and only the white males, myself included, got up and left. What made it even more blatant was the fact that one of the questions (routine in a criminal trial, I think) was whether one knew any law enforcement people
personally. I lied and said no even though my neighbor was a cop and I knew a lot of them from any martial arts studio I ever trained in. Meanwhile, a black woman who was MARRIED to a cop and another one who worked in the school system and had daily contact with the police were allowed to stay. Balkanization at its finest.
“And if the drug dealer ran for president 90% of blacks would vote for him because he is black.”
They already did, in a way. Marion Barry. Consider it a trial run.
Posted by Mike from not-Queens at 10:41 AM on March 12
They should make it something like, 9-3 or something like that, equals conviction.
SCOTUS has ruled that, according to the US Contitution, they can go down to 9-3, and a couple of states have gone down to 10-2 in non-capital cases. One of them is Louisiana, which is not surprising, since it has so many blacks. But just remember that this is a double-edged sword: a lone black malcontent will no longer be able to hang a jury, but neither will a lone white nationalist or libertarian looking to help out some hapless white shlamazel.
In any case, for me, the question is mostly academic, since my state constitution requires a unanimous verdict.
Posted by qwerty at 10:45 AM on March 12
It doubtless never occurred to the lone holdout juror that the majority of the buyers of the garbage this dealer purveyed were other blacks. Moreover, “plotting to kill a witness” is really over the top.
Juror nullification is an old game, but also a game at which two can play. Remember this, fellow readers, when summoned for jury duty.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 12:22 PM on March 12
What do you think is going to happen when Obama and LOUD mouth Michelle/Oprah win?
Posted by at 12:55 PM on March 12
>>>Obama could do anything and still get votes from blacks. He’s an open borders man no matter what he says about securing the borders.
June, you are 100% right on everything in your posts. Not only would Phony Obama (or Lying Hillary, for that matter) open the borders to another 50 million Mexican trash — you can REST ASSURED, 50 MILLION AFRICANS (INCLUDING KENYANS — his tribal roots) will live here at OUR EXPENSE!
Phony Obama may have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of countless young White Americans — but those of us who still have the capacity to think and reason — better get busy and get as many people as possible — to vote AGAINST OBAMA in November.
As to that “dream ticket” the media and the talking heads are gushing about… should that come to pass… Let it be OUR OPPORTUNITY — to rid ourselves of a pair of worthless lying phonies WITH A SINGLE VOTE! (Unless, of course, you enjoy the close proximity of Mexican, African or Caribbean Black immigrants.)
Posted by Fed Up at 1:42 PM on March 12
Anonymous at 12:25 just because blacks have hijacked jury nullification and use it for evil doesn’t mean it should be banned. Jury nullification is one of the major pillars of freedom upon which the U.S. was founded. When you consider that we have millions of laws - most of them unjust - you begin to realize how important it is that more citizens use this tool for good. Every juror should judge the defendant on whether he did anything wrong, not on whether he technically broke the law - regardless of what the judge might instruct. If you even hint at “jury nullification”, they will dismiss you from the jury so pretend you’re only interested in enforcing the law and then, when the time comes to vote - find the “criminal”, who never hurt anybody, NOT GUILTY. Nothing is more patriotic. Nothing is more just than saving an innocent soul from the jaws of tyrannical government.
Posted by jewamongyou at 1:52 PM on March 12
If blacks want to free their own, I don’t have a problem with that so long as the criminals stay in the black community. If they don’t want to convict drug dealers, let the drug dealers live with the people who demand their freedom.
What blacks fail to see is that these criminals need to be removed from their neighborhoods otherwise they drag individuals and communities down by spreading their activities.
One reason white communities have less crime is because white people rejoice when the police catch the bad guys.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 2:05 PM on March 12
To poster “A search in Google for “Sarah Faulks” and murder turns up no results. So this is an example of imaginary anti-white racism. “
Try Googling “carjacking and shooting”, then leaf thru all the news stories. See any trends??
Posted by cartman at 4:18 PM on March 12
Every lawyer who’s ever picked a jury know the score: the single biggest factor influencing a juror’s decision is their race. In civil cases, blacks and Hispanics will almost always go with the plaintiff, especially if the plaintiff is black or Hispanic. In criminal cases, they go for the defendant. That’s a rule. Never mind the facts, never mind the law, never mind the lawyers and what they say, never mind the judge. You don’t need any of these things in a multiracial society. All you need to know is race.
The depressing thing is that we continue, as a society, to pretend that we have a rule of law. We do not. We have multiracial mess.
Posted by Hugh Lincoln at 4:45 PM on March 12
I think the whole idea of having a jury decide the fate of an accused person is an outdated idea to begin with. Viewed from the perspective of changing demographics, it’s outright dangerous. Why not a panel of judges decide?
Posted by at 6:17 PM on March 12
Looks like the ghost of Jim Crow is rearing it’s two faced head. When white America realizes all the dishonest things it (as a collective group) has done to blacks in this country regarding legal proceedings, the better things they’ll be for it. Honest reflection and acknowledgment..is it THAT hard?
Posted by retribution at 6:23 PM on March 12
The war against drugs is about a desirable as the Prohibition.Instead of spending tens of billions to incarcerate and persecute drug users and dealers, we should have a policy something like European countries,which is to try to curb drug usage without resorting to such extreme measures.If an individual cannot control their drug habit, then it is only their own fault,and no one else should be blamed.
That might have a bit of credibility if any of the states in question have black populations at 12% of total and mestizo populations at 13% of total, which I kinda doubt.
Libertarians are really out there sometimes - we should all agree to have our children exposed to cocaine, heroin, and meth to satisfy some abstract ideal? No thanks!
Posted by Svigor at 7:22 PM on March 12
I need to hurry up because I have night class tonight, but I really have something to say to the person who posted at 12:50 a.m.
I understand what you say when you say that you can’t blame white people for not wanting children since there is no hope of justice for them in the future. I fear for the future of white children that I do not have. I would still like some. I think that I do have the solution to making the world safer for them. I think that we should sterilize this country’s criminals. I am serious. I would be willing to take an IQ test and give up my right to have children if I flunked that test if it meant that our most stupid and violent people could not have children.
My dad’s heart was in the right place when he wanted to send me to a college for women only. He said that I would be safer there. I really do think that young black women might be as much of a threat to my safety as young white men. I don’t have many problems with Asian students even though I don’t speak any Asian languages. I generally get along with Hispanic students too. That might be because I speak some Spanish. I almost never get along with anybody black. I have noticed that Asian and Hispanic students usually don’t like black people either. Asian students are often afraid of them. How come I could go to an college for women only and my brother went to a high school with no girls but neither one of us could go to a school for white kids only?
Student council decisions work sort of the way juries do so this jury article reminded me of what goes on at school when students have to settle disputes.
Posted by Ginny at 7:30 PM on March 12
“Looks like the ghost of Jim Crow is rearing it’s two faced head. When white America realizes all the dishonest things it (as a collective group) has done to blacks in this country regarding legal proceedings, the better things they’ll be for it. Honest reflection and acknowledgment..is it THAT hard?”
Posted by retribution at 6:23 PM on March 12
After some real honest reflection, I have realized that for the last 40+ years Whites have given much effort, blood and life to provide Blacks with every opportunity to succeed in this society; Afrirmative Action, set asides, Head Start and countless other things and all to no avail. I teach in a school where Black kids have access to the same opportunities as everyone else but instead of taking advantage of them they wander the halls yelling in their earsplitting decibel level; especially the females, stroll into classes after the bell and are disrespectful and even threatening when challenged. They create at least 75% of the serious discipline incidents while constituting about 14% of the school population. They are given chance after chance; many more than are given to White kids and they continue to squander them. Their raison d’etre seems to be the disruption of the educational process and they’re incapable of reasoning out the damage they are doing to themselves.
Whites are not their enemies they need only to look in the mirror to find him.
Posted by at 11:53 PM on March 12
Libertarians are really out there sometimes - we should all agree to have our children exposed to cocaine, heroin, and meth to satisfy some abstract ideal?
Legalizing drugs and regulating them like alcohol would actually make them harder for children to get. When I was a teen, liquor was hard to come by, but we never had any problems getting a hold of dope, since dope dealers don’t ask for proof of age. I say legalize the stuff, put it behind the counter at the pharmacy and require proof of age to buy it. That’s the best way to keep it out of the hands of kids.
Posted by qwerty at 12:21 AM on March 13
A search in Google for “Sarah Faulks” and murder turns up no results. So this is an example of imaginary anti-white racism.
Posted by at 4:56 AM on March 12
You’re not very good at logical thinking, are you? (“I can’t find it on Google so therefore it didn’t happen.” That’s a new one.)
The case occurred in Kansas City Kansas in the early ‘80’s. The murder took place near 78th and State Avenue. The “Kansas City Star”, surprisingly, had a fairly long article on the case. Kansas State law requires all perpetrators in a robbery that results in a murder to be convicted of murder. The facts in the case were not in dispute. These two black carjackers admitted to the robbery but accused each other of shooting Sarah Faulk. But per Kansas State law, it didn’t matter: BOTH were guilty of MURDER. However the black jurors, in flagrant disregard of the LAW, refused to convict EITHER of murder. The Star article quoted the jurors in interviews after the verdicts and discussed in detail the racial motives of the black jurors in this early example of black juror nullification. You can probably access the story using Nexis. Or the “Kansas City Star” archives: This might require microfiche if they have not transcribed electronically articles from that time. You must pay a hefty fee for Nexis. The “Kansas City Star” archives require a fee to be paid.
The fact you have not heard of something that only received local news attention or that running a simple Google search on does not turn up, does not mean it did not happen. Where did you ever get the idea that EVERYTHING is accessible from Google? Only a tiny fraction of what goes on in this big world is. Long before the world wide web and Google, reporters depended on going through microfiche or subscribing to Nexis, which is costly but gives access to orders of magnitude more news stories and articles than are available from a web search. BTW Are you a sophomore?
Posted by at 12:26 AM on March 13
“Anonymous at 12:25 just because blacks have hijacked jury nullification and use it for evil doesn’t mean it should be banned. Jury nullification is one of the major pillars of freedom upon which the U.S. was founded. When you consider that we have millions of laws - most of them unjust - you begin to realize how important it is that more citizens use this tool for good. Every juror should judge the defendant on whether he did anything wrong, not on whether he technically broke the law - regardless of what the judge might instruct.
Posted by jewamongyou at 1:52 PM on March 12”
I agree with you entirely. Clearly the purpose of having a trial by jury is for the citizens on the jury to exercise restraint on tyrranical judges and prosecutors. It’s not just that some laws are unjust (and some indeed are), but that even good laws may be misapplied. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in what cases to pursue, and which laws they decide to emphasize. The judge and the DA may tell you that your part is only to decide according to the law, but why should a free people necessarily be bound by that in all cases?
Posted by CSinAL at 3:27 AM on March 13
Most white Americans concern themselves with issues that are good for the country as a whole. Blacks do not. Whether it’s the Black Caucus in Congress, black leaders, or the majority of the rank and file, none of them really concern themselves with anything other than blacks and only things which affect blacks.
Whether it’s issues worldwide or issues in this country, nothing has their attention unless it involves the black race specifically. Race has priority over everything among the vast majority of blacks. They are concerned more with issues affecting blacks worldwide than they are about issues that affect their non-black countrymen here in this nation.
Blacks are without doubt the most racist group in the US today. The ones who DO vote on the facts during jury duty likely only do so because to do otherwise would subject themselves to scorn, but some of them, like the woman in this case, don’t even care about that.
Posted by ice at 6:15 PM on March 13
This is just one more way that Blacks have made a mockery of their “civil rights”. D.W. Griffith in Birth of a Nation could not have done a more convincing job of denigrating the foolishness of Black citizenship than Blacks have done themselves. Black civil rights are perhaps a farce, or a tragedy, or a little of both - but never should we accept them as something deserving of honor or respect.
Posted by 20k at 8:50 PM on March 13
a saying in the old south, was give them and inch they’ll take a mile. thats why they were disciplined more harshly. cant give them a level field, they will ruin it.
Posted by at 4:39 AM on March 14
Whites need to start doing the same thing.
Posted by at 7:46 PM on March 11
Trust me, the white race will never do anything like this, the majority of whites I work with and know are in extreme denial about race relations in this country. They seem to believe that everthing is okay and as long as we don’t talk about it or acknowledge anything else it’ll be okay.
Posted by at 8:33 PM on March 14