Skip to main content

I normally try not to use the word "white privilege" because I have seen a couple of my black friends overuse that word. But after seeing the reaction by some "tv experts" on this case, I am going to use it because I can't think of any other phrase to describe what I saw. I actually used to like her in the past, so it pains me to have to use it on her. And let me say a lot of my white friends have found this to be an open and shut case of Dunn being guilty. But I know some people from Jacksonville and they share some of the same seething anger that Dunn has on race and ideology, though they are not quite at Dunn's level.

Ashleigh Banfield of CNN does not get it. She is obviously more of a well meaning liberal leaning person than a right wing nut. I would not even say she is racist.  But I was infuriated by what this woman keeps spouting off on CNN. Her tone and her incessant defense of the jurors just struck me as wrong and tone deaf. She is acting like some naïve sheltered person who, while she acknowledges that Dunn should be guilty, is giving way too much allowance for the jurors who believed his testimony. As bad as the prosecutors were, the case was such a slam dunk case, that even mediocre prosecutors gave enough evidence to fry this guy.

For me, Ashleigh is more of a frustrating person to deal with than some of the more conservative people. here are some of the gems she blabbered on to Don Lemon on CNN

1) Ashleigh says that if the situation was reversed, maybe a black guy would feel the same fear and maybe do the same thing if surrounded by 4 big white guys. BULLSHIT.
2) Ashleigh then says we should not judge the jury on what was said on TV but what was said in the courtroom and if you just go by what was said in the courtroom, it is not unreasonable to think some jurors could be reasonable about finding Dunn credible.
OK HERE IS WHERE SHE REVEALS HER WHITE PRIVILEGE. I am culturally more white and Indian than black. And I could tell he was spouting BS based on my own friends and acquaintances(my social circle is majority white).  I saw that same COURTROOM TESTIMONY. are you fucking kidding me? His own fiancée contradicted him. He looked stupid when trying to explain why he would leave his gun in the car and not call 911 while claiming to be scared the black gangstas would retaliate at the hotel.
And while some reasonable person can give him allowance for freezing and fleeing, not calling 911 for 15 hours is credible when you claim you are scared?
3) Ashleigh Banfield - you don't get it again. You kept saying there should be a presumption of innocence to such a high degree that the jury sometimes have no option but to believe everything he says at face value under such laws. THEN WHY DON"T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES WHERE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT TAKEN AT FACE VALUE WHEN USING THIS ARGUMENT? There was that infamous case of a black older guy who shot a white father at  a playground. Guess what, contrary to what the right wingers claim, he did not go scott free. He wsa convicted.

Then Ashleigh, for some reason, keeps going on with her nonsense in some inexplicable desperate bid to defend this jury. She comes up with some ridiculous example that if she is sees 4 big guys on the street, she would cross the street away from them. She then makes a disclaimer that the race of the guys would not be a factor.

Ashleigh, do me a favor. it is OK to admit it. It is perfectly fine to avoid walking near four guys, even if they are black and ghetto. You do not have to act like it is not a factor. I won't judge you. I have friends of color who would do the same. What galls me is that you  use that as an example to compare that situation to this Michael Dunn case. Let me start off by saying is that in the example you gave us, you did not mention shooting at those ghetto guys(I know she didn't mention that term, but we know what she meant and like I said, that is not offensive to me as long as she keeps it real). So why didn't Dunn cross the street metaphorically like you did in your example? And what testimony did the jury base their possible belief that these 4 teens were comparable to the thugs you referred to.

Ashleigh, go F yourself. You showed your true colors today.
[UPDATE 2]
I am not the only who has picked up on this unknown facet of Banfield's personality.
http://whattalking.com/...

http://inagist.com/...

[UPDATE]:
I gotta also add that I would have gone easier on Ashleigh if she  merely expressed this sentiment initially out of misplaced but honest perspective and later was willing to alter her perception.  But she calls into the studio an hour later and still says the same exact crap and kept digging herself a deeper hole with that final analogy of four guys walking on the street making her want to cross it as if anyone said she would be racist for doing so.  It's like she lacked the capacity to evolve during the discussion a far from radical Don Lemon was having with her.

I am adding more clarification on what I think based on comments about the believability of the testimony.
If Michael Dunn were a white old lady not exposed to the world and she called the cops at SOME point that night , I can see some of the jury being conflicted with the law the way it is and think that while the  old lady still had no right to be shoot that kid , maybe she had a genuine albeit unwarranted fear. I personally would still convict that lady of something, but that's me. Still, I would have given Ashleigh a pass if that is what she would have referred to as a case where an old lady had no business shooting a kid but the jury may buy into the claims of genuine fear and the law corners them here.

But she was not. she was referring to this case and the jury  buying Dunn's testimony as believable.  Do you know how many cases the defendant actually takes the stand and sounds pretty believable and is still found guilty? In this case, objectively, his story has been contradicted by many witnesses, including his own fiancée who still supports him on facebook. Defense lawyers were pointing to her hysterical state of mind to discount her testimony. But a hysterical state does not force her to invent a claim that her beloved fiance was complaining about the "thug music" as they drove into the parking lot. MAYBE it will make her not pay attention to him as he drives home and even if he told you that they had a gun, she was not paying attention to him. So maybe she can be guilty of omission , but not inclusion of what he said. BUt then that would bring you to other point.

If the fiancee was that hysterical where she clearly preferred apizza to the cops, does that not tell us she was scared of what trouble he would get into if they called the cops? Not far fetched when Michael Dunn testified that she didn't seem to understand what self defense was. Which tells me he clearly got some feedback from her on the way to the hotel that she thought he did something wrong. This inference is directly based oin TESTIMONY during the trial and action/inactions by Dunn we know for fact. And I still can't get how he can leave the gun in the car AND not call the cops at the hotel if he was still that much in fear of his life. So he was ready to fist fight them at the hotel?

You bought his tears about his fiancée's welfare when he started shooting at them? He himself did not know where she was until she popped up next to him after the shooting. If he was really concerned for her as he testified, wouldn't he have glanced for a second to make sure she was in a safe place? It was clear he didn't,  by his own testimony. Does that not clearly add to the contradictions with common sense that keep piling up?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tags are comma separated. (0+ / 0-)
  •  But He Was Charged w 1st Degree Murder (4+ / 0-)

    which (IANAL) implies pre planning, obviously not the case here. It seemed to me when I heard the charge that the prosecution was trying to throw the case.

    Remember it only takes one holdout to hang a jury. I haven't seen a breakdown of votes but there are a number of ways this jury could've hung without the "jury" being racist.

    I'm as outraged as anyone but I'm withholding my assessment of the jury till we learn more. I'd think they'd allow the final vote tally to be released but not my specialty.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:09:43 PM PST

    •  1st degree wasnt the only option on the table (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      THey could have compromised on 2nd degree.

      This is assuming even the most racist person on the jury wasn't trying to vote for acquittal on that count and the rest were trying to compromise on a mere manslaughter.

      •  I think that she was not doing a good job (6+ / 0-)

        of articulating what the real problem is with the law.

        The Florida law basically gives license to anyone - including you or me - to shoot someone dead because we are scared of them.  The other statutes with which he was charged and of which he was convicted don't seem to have the same provisions for protections if you are being a murderous, paranoid in a given situation.

        I am definitely not going to blame this jury.  They did NOT set this guy free by any means.  He is toast.  I DO blame the legislature who wrote and passed the stand your ground law and the governor who signed the bill into law.  I am also going to blame the Florida legislatures and governors who have come an gone without repealing the law since it was passed nearly nine years ago now, I think.  All of those people have blood on their hands.  The Trayvon Martin case and this case are not at all the only cases that have ended up delivering perverted justice since the law took effect.

        I have to tell you that I watched Dunn's testimony live and I was just completely stunned.  I think that he was telling his truth.  I think that he was being honest about how he felt that night.  I think that he was an irrational and stupid man who came into a situation with prejudices who had assimilated the message from the Florida State Government that he could just kill people who freaked him out and that there would be "no problem".  That, to me, is a scary fucking thing to contemplate.  The idea that any individual in this society would be told that effectively deputizing themselves in a moment of panic would give them license to kill anyone they were afraid of is just total fucking insanity and will bring on societal mayhem if it is not stopped.

        We already have cases where drug dealers have gotten off in Florida for killing adversarial criminals trying to protect their stash with the Stand Your Ground Law.  What more do people need to see to understand that vigilante justice is fucking insane?

        •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, slothlax

          This is primarily a jury problem, specifically white jurors.  They simply will not apply the same standard to white defendants that they apply to black defendants.  

          The SYG laws are not totally unreasonable.  The law was meant to protect a person who was obeying the law from prosecution if they defended themselves from criminal attacks (which used to happen, I served on a jury where a man was sentenced to 20 years for killing a convicted felon who was stalking and threatening him.  The case was intra-racial and my jury hung, but the retrial didn't).  The problem is that white defendants benefit from SYG laws while black defendants don't, and white victims are vindicated while black victims aren't.  In that regard, you have a group of recalcitrant white citizens that have acted in a manner that reflects poorly on the law.  The law would send a perfectly acceptable message, but for the different responses by largely white juries.

          "Because I am a river to my people."

          by lordcopper on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:27:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the end, it's not the law but how its "applied" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordcopper

            I guess for lack of a better word?

            The inherent racism in our "justice" system has to be rectified.  Fostered and bread out of the "war on drugs".

            How do we address this? How can the law truly be "blind" when it's applied by "humans"???

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:12:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the $64,000 question. I have no answers (0+ / 0-)

              that maintain the sanctity of the current jury system.

              "Because I am a river to my people."

              by lordcopper on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:30:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The racism is a centuries old problem AND (0+ / 0-)

              That white people in America love the oppression of black bodies. Any law or excuse will do as long as uppity n-words get back to the shoe shining, toe tapping, white ass kissing that evil white people need.

              nosotros no somos estúpidos

              by a2nite on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 06:38:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeap...but instead of "shoe shinning"...it's now (0+ / 0-)

                evolved into this:

                The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery?

                All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.”

                -cut-

                Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country’s 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness.

                Keep these facts in mind when pushing for tougher laws.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:44:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The data in Florida doesn't reflect this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slothlax, a2nite

            Based on a report on the cases where SYG was invoked. White killers and non-white killers have been acquitted/convicted in close to the same ratios.

            From what I've seen of the data, the discrepancy comes to light when you look at white victims versus non-white victims. It seems white victims have had their killer convicted at a much higher rate then non-white victims.

            http://www.tampabay.com/...

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:13:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I said, the law is reasonable. The acquittal (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slothlax

              ratios don't tell the whole story, you have to look into the data.  As a black man, if you tell me a white, law abiding citizen, was accosted by a black criminal and he had to shoot him to defend himself, I'm going to support the law abiding citizen.  But look at the miscarriage of justice that was the Zimmerman trial.  Zimmerman, wrongly suspected Martin of being a burglar (in fact Martin was the law abiding citizen), stalked him, accosted him, and then shot him after losing the fight.  No black defendant could survive those facts.  In that case, the SYG laws were used as an excuse by a largely white jury that refused to apply the law justly.  In their mind, only Zimmerman mattered and Martin wasn't even an after thought.  What effect does cases with facts such as these have on the ratios?

              "Because I am a river to my people."

              by lordcopper on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:27:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Let's examine the testimony (0+ / 0-)

          I understand the subtlety of your distinction. Trust me, I get what you are saying and I still call hogwash on why his testimony is believable.  If this was some old white or indian or jewish lady, I would understand that fear, however unwarranted it is and I would actually understand if the jury was cornered into confusin on the law.

          First, I agree with you that the law is to blame when a jury is cornered into giving the benefit of doubt to someone who is genuinely scared , even if that fear is not rational. But in this case, I don't think it was even that ambiguous.

          What was believable about a guy who claimed he was so scared , even hours later at the hotel, about retaliation never calling the cops even if panic made him think irrationally right after the incident. HOw long was that paralyzing irrationality supposed to reasonably last?

          The guy admitted he was waiting to find "his local cops" so they could hear his story. He kept repeating lack of ambiguity in doing anything wrong and that he didn't feel like he was in trouble with the law after he shot them, and even after finding out the guy was dead. Yet, everything he did after that shows that he didn't want to call the cops unless they were "his local guys" so they could understand his version of the events. Why would the Jacksonville cops take some "thugs" words over his unless he was truly guilty?

          What was believable about his contention the cops messed up finding the shotgun. Let's say they did. Wouldn't the cops have found something in the background of Jordan Davis or his  buddies where they procured a gun? THis guy was repeating those contentions with the same exact demeanor he was saying his lie about being in fear of his life.

          HE was contradicted by his own fiancée on two major points. Also, in addition to that, if his fiancée was so hysterical and scared, what was she really scared of. His not calling the cops tells me that he was calling the pizza guy instead because he knew that she thought they were in trouble and that's why calling the pizza store would calkm her nerves than calling the cops who would be around to protect them from any retaliation.

          This is all I got from the testimony and stuff presented in court. Please tell me what you found believable. you can't take one statement in isolation.

          •  The jury didn't believe him, either. (0+ / 0-)

            Honestly, my take was that he was a moron and an idiot.  I found that believable.  I found it believable that he believed that he had the right to just shoot at people.

            And that right there is the problem with these stand your ground laws.  People believe that they have the right to not only shoot at people, but also shoot to kill without consequence.

            So, did I think his testimony was completely factual?  No.  But did I find him credible when he believed he had the law on his side, yes.  Apparently the jury could not reconcile that question of guilt, either.  They did not acquit him of the murder charge, but they could not convict him on it in the end.  I don't know if you've noticed, but if you read the three murder statues that were available and read the stand your ground law, they are in conflict - and the claim on the part of the prosecutor that Dunn committed premeditated murder (which is the first degree charge), just doesn't work with any of the facts of the case for a reasonable person.  That prosecutor screwed up - again.  But at the end of the day, it is the stand your ground law that is the most dangerous element of this story and the situation in Florida which is that a lot of morons with guns seem to think that the law gives them the right to shoot to kill just because someone says something that freaks them out.  That's bad for everyone.

            •  SYG law does not excuse that reasoning (0+ / 0-)

              It does excuse if you really feared for your life even if such fear is stupid.  It does not excuse his action just because he felt like he could defend himself in court. His overall testimony contradicts his claim he was so scared he had to shoot right away in self defense.

              And his lawyer did not use the SYG law . They went for self defense.

              •  I don't think that you are tracking with (0+ / 0-)

                my point about SYG…

                I agree with you and the large majority of your points regarding the guy not being believable and so on, but my big picture point is that people like this idiot Dunn - and there are a lot more people like him than not - are aware of SYG and believe - rightly or wrongly - that they are entitled to shoot someone dead under that statute.

                Step away from the understanding that the translation of SYG gives license to racists for a moment (that is super, majorly important, but…) and just look at what that mindset and impression can do to the society overall.

                I made the point in another diary comment thread on this subject that someone who is walking a dog who falls into a particular category of breeds that scare people could themselves be shot and so could their dog - just because the dog might scare the shooter.  Anything could be perceived as a threat to someone based on their own prejudices and past bad experiences - and any shooter in Florida could not only argue their case in court on this front and be found not guilty, but also justify their decisions in their own mind based on thinking that they had the right to just shoot someone because it scared them.  When I say all of this, I am not rationalizing or approving of their bad and deadly decisions, I am pointing out that they have been given the impression by the state that they have that power - and that is fucking scary.

                My Dad was a criminal defense attorney and he used to say, "inclusive heart, all of my clients are fucking stupid," whenever a conversation would come up about why and how the fuck his clients got caught doing fucking stupid things.

                The State of Florida handed over a serious power to individuals with SYG.  They basically said, "No need to evade deadly combat or call the police.  You shoot and we will be cool with your decision-making skills and the outcome."  That is a hugely troubling displacement of power put into the hands of a population of people who really are mostly fucking stupid, unequipped emotionally to rationally deal with threat,  and a majority of people who just have no concept of what the realities of taking another person's life are.

                Not for nothing - and this is something most people living now don't really remember - lynchings in the South were not legal after a certain point, but the lack of prosecution of that horrifying activity and the tacit approval from state and local governments made it an option in people's minds.  You don't hear about lynchings happening with any regularity because the government has both made that illegal and also prosecuted the crime with clear statutes.  People who say that SYG is a modern version of lynching laws are right.  But the advantage that we have in fighting against SYG is that it is a dangerous law for everyone in ways that I think people are only now beginning to understand.  Even the white, racist fuckheads are looking at Dunn and wondering why he was convicted because they, like him, were thinking that the Florida legislature gave them license to unload a round of ammo at some person or people of color without consequence.

                When the government encourages vigilante justice or simply even just fails to curtail it, NO ONE is safe.  People get killed and the truth is that no amount of jail time that the killer has to serve ever brings the dead person back.  Nothing about that trade is fair or just.  It is way better for a society to discourage people being killed than it is to have the "correct" jury verdict and sentence for the killer.

                SYG is a horrible and dangerous statute for everyone involved - including stupid, dumb assed, suckers like Dunn who thought it would protect him after having murdered one person and tried to murder others.  That's dumb shit Legislators, NRA and other profiteers who are effectively engineering these deadly travesties for their own personal gain.  THEY do not care about anyone in these scenarios nor do they care about the health and welfare of this country.

  •  Just so I understand... (4+ / 0-)

    You're saying Ashleigh Banfield has the opinion she does because she is white.

    I agree with most of what you wrote, I don't see why you have to be racist about it. You could instead, you know, argue the merits of your point.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:19:58 PM PST

    •  I did not mean to say she is an outright racist (4+ / 0-)

      But she is naïve, and just does not get it , and one reason why, is because of race and I really believe that. She simply does not comprehend it and it is obvious from her tone that it did not bother her at a deeper level. She seemed more offended that we were bashing the jury.

      I did not say eveyr white person is racist. But she is part of the problem because it is so subtle in her case despite the fact that she is a well meaning person in general. That makes it more frustrating. That is why I used a word that I was once, skeptical of being overused - white privilege. I did not use white racism in the title.

      •  I understand (3+ / 0-)

        But facts alone can make your case.

        This link for example:

        http://www.tampabay.com/...

        What I see from this data is that if the victim is not white in a "stand your ground" case the killer is much more likely to win the case. Note, that the race of the killer doesn't seem to be a factor (from what I could tell).

        As you would expect, there are many more white victims in "stand your ground" cases then non-white victims.

        Is it racism? Or is it a bad law?

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:49:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The race of the victim matters more. we know that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          I know I have been saying it in other diaries.  THat is not news to me.

          And it does not invalidate what I thought of Banfield's comments. Would Banfield have said this same stuff if the popcorn movie theater shooting had the same verdict as we saw today? Would she say that she could see how it is reasonable to expect fair minded people to think it OK for a person to mistake popcorn for a gun when the guy with the popcorn was a young white father?

          Hell, in the popcorn shooting case, the white victim actually makes an aggressive move against the idiot old ex cop and there is actual footage which shows that.

          •  So, if a white person is killed and the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides, sturunner

            killer goes free, that is somehow less bad than if the victim were a person of color?

            Why don't you think it is bad for all people?

            I think that these Stand Your Ground Laws are shitty, insane and dangerous for ALL people in this society - including the fucking idiot shooters.

            I watched Dunn and wondered what his problem was.  Why not go into the store at the gas station and have them lock the doors and call the police?  Well, he didn't do that because the fucking morons in the Florida legislature gave him a license to unilaterally dispatch with the threatening people as far as he understood it.

            The Florida legislature handed over a complex and unjust determination of a death sentence to the average person with that Stand Your Ground Law.  No question that it puts people of color at greater risk than white people in our society, but I would argue strenuously that it puts EVERYONE at risk which is what I think Banfield was getting at in her defense of the jury tonight.  NO ONE IS SAFE WITH THESE KINDS OF LAWS ON THE BOOKS.  NO ONE.

            •   I did not say it was preferable for victim to be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              white.

              What I said is law enforcement, judicial, and jury response usually turns more against the accused if the victim is white.

              I have full sympathy for the white family in the theater case as I have for Jordan's parents in this music case. When Reginald Denny was attackd by those black hooligans, I wanted justice badly for Denny and wanted those black guys to fry in jail. I have no problem attacking thugs of any race when warranted. I am not PC that way.  That was one of the few incidents where a black guy hurt a white guy and the law enforcement was lacking mainly because they were scared of the mobs themselves and the LA law and police  authorities self interest and indifference led to Denny getting shafted. And as much as I attack Asians for being racist, I can at least understand those Asians who got that way if they had a store in a ghetto area where no one else wanted to put up one and they had to put up with a lot of crap. I do realize there are two sides to most stories. But not in Dunn's case. I know people like Dunn and these guys just have this seething rage.

              Back to the two FL cases. The jury , I honest believe, won't give equal credibility to the victims because the victims in one case is a black teen boy who will be seen as a thug more than the white guy who threw popcorn at the old ex cop.

            •  I hope that the 71 yo white former police (0+ / 0-)

              Gets off. That would make the point clearer that SYG enables
              murder just 'cause.

              White men can kill us just 'cause & get out of jail free.

              SYG = kill at will so
              better watch out.

              nosotros no somos estúpidos

              by a2nite on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:43:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope he doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

                We don't need that poor white victim's family to suffer just to get some balance.

                I want to see Angela Corey try this case better and win it regardless of what kind of jury sits on it. Corey is one of the bad people in this whole saga and it is ironic how ungrateful the defense is towards Corey.

    •  People of color (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, pravin, GustavMahler, Nannyberry

      mostly don't think like her in a situation like this.  They don't bend over backward, ignoring contrary evidence in one place and making shit up in another, to justify the jury's decision.  They're too busy being pissed off that yet another innocent dead black boy is not going to see justice.

      So yeah, she argued that way because she is white.

      •  Well, I just think she's being stupid. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        You can stick with your racist idea though if you like.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:59:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          I see there's no talking to you.  Never mind my attempt at polite explanation then.

          •  Yes, you politely explained your racist idea. (0+ / 0-)

            Thank you, I got it.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 06:11:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You said she thinks what she does because (0+ / 0-)

            she's white...

            That's racist.

            Not because she was born and raised in Canada where she probably had very little exposure to various cultures.  

            Not because her education was limited as well.

            The color of her skin makes her believe these things, that's what you're saying.

            How's that not racist?

            rac·ism  (rā′sĭz′əm)
            n.
            1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
            2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:51:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  That's what white privilege means (0+ / 0-)

      She made arguments that make sense if you are white, but fall apart if race is removed.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 11:02:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't comment on this specifically (8+ / 0-)

    But having watched her over the years (and recalling of course her dismissal from MSNBC over her unforgivable sin of Reporting While Honest) and viewing her as a cut above the norm in the establishment media (a very low bar to surpass of course), she's also struck me as a bit clueless in that well-paid designer lifestyle upper middle class white privileged yuppie sort of way that one comes across in certain places and fields, people who've been shielded from many less pleasant and prettied-up aspects of life in their gilded worlds and don't know what things are life for regular people.

    I think it's less white privilege than a certain kind of well-off white privilege, as not all whites live the kind of sheltered and pampered life that she lives. In fact most don't. But she clearly does. As does everyone else in the establishment media. Sooner or later, it messes with your sense of reality, if not decency.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:40:23 PM PST

    •  Exactly, well said (4+ / 0-)

      My tone was harsher because I was taken aback that she would go that way on national TV. I have dealt with many white women like her. Bascially nice people at one level. They might even sleep with a black guy after getting tipsy at an office party. But then they would find such assumptions "reasonable" for some people to have.

      Very disappointing as I found her one of the more engaging personalities on CNN.

      •  This touches on a related issue I've had (5+ / 0-)

        for years with a certain kind of well-educated, affluent, white collar, successful, urban and suburban, socially liberal person who seems pretty liberal, until you realize that a lot of it is just a pose, a necessary pose to be accepted by their social and professional peer groups, but which is often belied by their actual stances on various issues, in terms of position and actions.

        Basically, when there's nothing at stake for them personally and it's mostly just talk, they're "liberal", but when it affects (or seems like it might affect) their money, position, status, privilege, security and such, they're a lot more conservative than they let on.

        Gay rights? Yeah, sure, why not. Raising the minimum wage? No problem, I'll gladly pay $0.50 more of my daily latte. Torture? NSA wiretaps? Drones? Well, um, I know it's "wrong" and all, but I don't want to die in a terrorist attack and my neighbor's cousin's husband died on 9/11 so...

        Lifestyle/fairweather liberals, I call them.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 06:10:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Funny thing is I dont consider myself that liberal (3+ / 0-)

          But what galls me about these so called macho gun toting conservatives is they plead fear every time they have to justify this. What a bunch of cowards, yet the image they sell for gun rights is how macho it is to defend oneself with a gun.

          Yet all they do is live in fear every day.

          I am no pacifist, but I try not to pretend that it is something which has no peaceful alternative and I try to respect pacifists.

          I have no problem with different ideologies. Just be consistent and fair to all people.

    •  Almost exactly what I was thinking. (0+ / 0-)

      What we experience in this life effects what we think, do and believe.

      If you've never been hungry, never been homeless, never had to struggle...never been discriminated against...the world is a utopia.

      Their "morality" is based on their experiences.  It's one thing to read about starving children, it's another thing to be that child.

      This exemplifies the disparities and failures of our "capitalistic" system.  

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:04:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ms. Banfield is from Winnipeg, Manitoba BTW (3+ / 0-)

    I wonder if part of her cluelessness is her growing up in a Prairie Provence and kicking around Canada for ten years before her big break getting hired at MSNBC in 2000.  Nothing against Canada or the fine citizens of Winnipeg but I imagine it would lead to different perspectives.

    By the time she was in the US she was already a successful probably pampered news star.

    A dear friend and former co-worker really brought it home to me the privileges I had growing up in suburbia in a family of northern European Heritage.  Her family had to scratch and claw their way into the US and she had to fight against the school establishment that thought Mexican kids were only good for picking crops and mowing lawns.  

    My friend fought back against that mindset and the mindset of her schoolmates that were dropping out of high school to have babies.  Instead she went to community college to get an accounting degree and later a B.A. in accounting.  

    The ghosts still haunted her though, employers who wanted to lowball salaries, bosses at our work who underestimated her because of how she looked etc.

    She got the last laugh last year when an old boss/mentor was able to hire her away for a deputy comptroller position and the agency I serve lost a valuable contractor because they were too blind to see the diamond they had.

  •  Blatant Bias (0+ / 0-)

    I noticed the same thing about her during the Travon Martin trial.  She was so shockingly biased that I couldn't stand to look at her as she tried to rationalize and explain away this imagined fear that some Caucasians fall back on when defending acts of racism against African Americans.  She is a prime example of what the real problem is in this country:  too many Caucasians are unable to co-exist with others that don't look like them.  And instead of coming to grips with that mentality and trying grow beyond it, they continue to defend it and pretend that they somehow are the one's being infringed upon.  They seek preferential treatment for themselves and each other, while at the same time accusing other ethnic groups of doing the same.   Reverse-racism, quotas, and other buzzwords are used to mask their true distorted and false perceptions; labeling other people as the very barbarians that they themselves have historically been is another tactic employed to "flip the script", so to speak, and call attention away from the day-to-day inequalities built into this countries very fabric.  They conveniently ignore the systematic and institutional racism that exists, and instead try to victimize themselves.  For people like banfield, the dunn case provides them with a platform to make the case that THEY are the innocent bystanders here, instead of the perpetraitors; to defend white privilege and promote this idiotic notion that somehow just being Black is reason to be mercilessly gunned down for some "perceived treat".  They try to claim racism is a black-white problem.  Racism is not a black-white problem.  Racism is a white problem, period.  A white problem that only they can fix.  Black people are in no position to do any thing more than try work with white people.  But if white people don't want to fix this problem, then black people will have no choice but to challenge it, as they have done throughout their history in this country.  And that will never change, no matter how much it makes the banfields uncomfortable

    •  I am almost with you on this, but not 100% (0+ / 0-)

      I got some thoughts on all races, but I just realized it it is too complex that it would be misconstrued if I put it in a comment here. I will have to refine my thoughts before I put a reply.

    •  ...I'm with you on most of your opinon... (0+ / 0-)

      ...there are lots of nuances though. The real situation is people being uncomfortable with, so far, black teenagers.

      In both the Zimmerman case and this one, the Cuban and white people attacked black teenage boys. In neither case was any threat even implied. A black teenage boy is walking and then proactively followed by a Cuban who clearly is/was racist as he started spewing racist comments to the police while following Trevon.

      In this case, a white man simply doesn't like rap music and proactively loads his gun and starts shooting...pauses...shoots again...pauses...shoots again.

      In neither case was any threat by black teenage boys a factor. It was a Cuban and white man who don't like black people. These two jerks didn't feel threatened or need to defend themselves fro even a perceived threat...

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:06:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site