Patterico's Pontifications

4/21/2012

Racial Justice Act Saves Racist from Death Row?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:14 pm



Remember the “Racial Justice Act”? I told you about it here, in February. It is a North Carolina law that says: we don’t care whether there was racial bias in this case. The issue is whether there is racial bias by prosecutors in the system as a whole. Oh — and we are going to measure racial bias by prosecutors by looking at the aggregate numbers of blacks prosecutors excuse, regardless of whether their excuses are justified by racially neutral reasons.

In February, I focused on the irony of the fact that the act was being invoked by . . . a racist — someone who killed a white guy for being white:

Welcome to a country where a law called the “Racial Justice Act” is employed to potentially reduce the punishment of someone who killed a man because of his color:

For nearly three weeks, convicted murderer Marcus Reymond Robinson has listened quietly inside a county courtroom here to intricate testimony about statistics — dry statistics that could get him off death row.

. . . .

The issue of race has dominated Robinson’s hearing before a Superior Court judge here. Prosecutors have pointed out that Robinson said “he was going to get him a whitey” before he killed 17-year-old Erik Tornblom with a shotgun blast to the face and robbed him of $27. An accomplice is serving a life sentence.

I write today to tell you that Robinson’s case has been decided. You’ll be pleased to learn that he has been let off death row due to the Racial Justice Act:

A county judge in North Carolina issued a landmark ruling Friday that overturned an inmate’s death sentence after a finding that race played a key role in the jury-selection process.

Wait. In the jury selection process of Robinson’s case? Or in cases as a whole? The Wall Street Journal is frustratingly unclear on this critical point.

Friday’s decision came in the case of Marcus Reymond Robinson, who was convicted in 1994 of murdering a white 17-year-old during a robbery. Judge Weeks was tasked with determining whether race played an improper role in jury selection at Mr. Robinson’s trial 18 years ago.

The judge, an African-American who has 23 years on the bench, vacated Mr. Robinson’s death sentence and resentenced him to life in prison without parole.

The state indicated it would appeal the decision.

During a hearing in February, attorneys for Mr. Robinson cited a study by researchers at Michigan State University to show that North Carolina prosecutors struck prospective black jurors from juries far more frequently than white jurors. As he announced his decision Friday, Judge Weeks said the Michigan State study was a “valid, highly reliable study.”

The state had argued that the study was flawed, and offered affidavits from prosecutors stating that their dismissals of prospective black jurors could be otherwise explained.

Reading that, do you have any idea whether the judge was focused on bias in Robinson’s case, bias in other cases, or both? The article later suggests that the answer is “both”:

Judge Weeks, who took about two months to announce his decision, said in court Friday that North Carolina “prosecutors intentionally discriminated” against potential black jurors during jury selection historically and in the Robinson case.

Well, look. If prosecutors intentionally discriminated against jurors in Robinson’s case, then this reversal is a no-brainer, and the Racial Justice Act had nothing to do with it.

If they didn’t, then we have a problem. Because, as I explained in February, prosecutors often have valid, racially neutral reasons to strike black jurors:

Let’s say there are six whites and six blacks on your panel. Four of the whites and two of the blacks say they can treat everyone equally, while two of the whites and four of the blacks say they can’t apply the death penalty and that they don’t trust police. You, as the prosecutor, strike the latter six from your panel.

You have just struck twice as many blacks as whites. You racist. And yet, you were doing your job: excusing biased jurors for race-neutral reasons.

So it’s hard to know how angry to get about this. But I will say that, any way you slice it, it is rather ironic that theories of racial justice are saving the life of a guy who killed someone because of his race.

UPDATE: The decision is here.

160 Responses to “Racial Justice Act Saves Racist from Death Row?”

  1. Racists

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. They must all be at Klan meeting…

    Gazzer (130c87)

  3. Well blacks commit no race crimes according to Holder. Maybe we can convict the jury?

    pat (0833d4)

  4. “Maybe we can convict the jury?”

    Aha, a comment worthy of Derrick Bell himself!

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  5. “it’s hard to know how angry to get about this”

    Nah, no it isn’t hard to know. Since the background premise of all such thinking and/or legislation and/or policy really reduces to “how can we best make up a bunch of spurious nonsense that will harm white people?”, the “how angry?” question as a response should simply be “mad as a nest of drunk Irish hornets”.

    Judge Weeks said the Michigan State study (well! I mean from the lofty exalted minds at no less than _Michigan (giggle) State_, even!!) was a valid, highly reliable study.

    Excuse me for my impertinence, but how exactly the f#ck would a judge know whether a sociological/statistical study was “valid and reliable” or not? Is Judge Weeks a Ph.D.-level mathematician? Or statistician? Or social scientist? With his 23 years on the bench, my solid guess is that the field of expertise of the learned Justice is restricted to the law and nothing else.

    I could go on and pick this to further shreds, but it’s late and I’m exasperated.

    Like they say in a Japanese restaurant, “O tempura! O morays!” (see if you can guess the extra level of the joke, which exists in three languages, not two. Judge Weeks? Your opinion on this joke?)

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  6. seems to me like this Erik feller got the short end of the stick here

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  7. O tempores. O mores. Oh times, oh customs. Woe, you young gods who have overturned ancient laws.

    nk (875f57)

  8. Another mistake made in the name of “fairness”.

    Icy (ad8dd3)

  9. Judge Weeks said the Michigan State study (well! I mean from the lofty exalted minds at no less than _Michigan (giggle) State_, even!!) was a valid, highly reliable study.

    Jerk.

    MayBee (e3ac46)

  10. Kentucky kicked this off by passing the same law in 1998. No case law (yet).

    Mostly this should end the death penalty in NC, if it passes the balance of the appellate process, since you’re letting one group escape capital punishment while others, less black groups, do not.

    The fact the judge is an obvious racist invoking black anger should get him to be named to SCOTUS.

    cedarhill (4ab585)

  11. #9: …I dunno, I actually sorta think that officially re-naming the place Michigan Giggle State would kinda strike a much-needed blow for Truth In Advertising.

    Whaddaya say? — Oh, who’m I kidding, I don’t give a rat’s what you think. Sorry, but it’s true.

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  12. Being a jerk to MayBee is uncalled for.

    I trust People from MSU more than Hahvahd any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

    JD (9e6048)

  13. “Being a jerk to Maybee is uncalled for.”

    Confusion of cause and effect.

    Next!

    Pro tip: have reasons for trusting X or Y, and not just your own prejudices.

    I think maybe they teach ya that sh#t at some places, ya reckon?

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  14. During a hearing in February, attorneys for Mr. Robinson cited a study by researchers at Michigan State University to show that North Carolina prosecutors struck prospective black jurors from juries far more frequently than white jurors.

    What if the actual mailing of jury summons – a race neutral process – has far less prospective black jurors called to appear than whites? What if there are more black than whites who offer a reasonable excuse to be dismissed from jury selection and are let go, leaving more whites to be selected for service?

    There are any number of possible reasons that a jury ends up being more white than racism. Did the study determine in individual mailings for jury requests, how many sent out were white v. black, and how many of the excuses given were from black jurors? Is it possible that in North Carolina where the unemployment rate hovers around 9.8% and is double that for blacks, that there is greater reason for them to be excused from serving? Without knowing those hard numbers, how is it possible to be sure race is the reason?

    IANAL, but it seems the study might indeed be very flawed.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  15. I focused on the irony of the fact that the act was being invoked by . . . a racist

    You must have missed the obvious element of revenge and the racial obsessions of that motivated both the change in law as well as the crime.

    Steve (661c31)

  16. In 2005 when I was ready to retire, we planned to move south. From 1978 to 1981 we lived in Goldsbord NC. My wife had like it and there were good colleges there where I could hire PhD engineers and scientists. We took a week to scout out several areas including the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and the Piedmont in North Carolina.

    Judy couldn’t take the slow pace from Winchester to Lexington. The military schools, Civil War battlefields, old Colleges like Washington & Lee seemed anachronistic. I love it still. One could almost see Robert E. Lee astride Traveller.

    Shocked by the high prices in Durham and Raleigh, we drove to our first house – a little yellow cottage in a quarter acre pine grove. All the trees were gone. The owner had painted it electric blue.

    In a restaurant in Chapel Hill, I realized what was wrong. The place was full of rude, drunk, obnoxious Yankees (that may be redundant). They fled the high taxes of the North East and brought their politics with them – the very reason the taxes had been so high in the first place.

    North Carolina politics are turning again, this time for the better.

    Arch (0baa7b)

  17. I hate spell check

    “Goldsboro”

    Arch (0baa7b)

  18. Without knowing those hard numbers, how is it possible to be sure race is the reason?

    IANAL, but it seems the study might indeed be very flawed.

    The study may indeed be flawed, but it could be the conclusions being drawn from it that are flawed.
    It may be true both that black people are more frequently struck from the jury AND that race is not the reason for it.

    MayBee (e3ac46)

  19. There was no confusion. You were a jerk to her. For no reason.

    JD (9e6048)

  20. I called him a jerk first, JD. He can be mean back, I have it coming. Besides, I hope to learn from all of his wisdom.

    MayBee (e3ac46)

  21. Judge Weeks, who took about two months to announce his decision, said in court Friday that North Carolina “prosecutors intentionally discriminated” against potential black jurors during jury selection historically and in the Robinson case.

    If prosecutors intentionally discriminated against black jurors historically and the historical was a significant part of the decision making in this case, then we can assume all future cases would be assessed under this historical trend, too. If I’m understanding this correctly, then all other capital cases with a black defendant will be judged with and by the burden of the state history, no?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  22. How is the new abode? Feeling better? Still have beautiful teeth?

    JD (9e6048)

  23. “You were a jerk to her. For no reason.”

    Well truth be told, as an old Brooklyn boy, I do respect a man much more than a degree (nevertheless I’m happy to do either, or both) so I salute you for your doggedness. I think it’s good on ye.

    Now if we were back home in say Farrell’s, I’d shake your hand and buy you a drink and we’d simply have done with it. But it’s also true that I’m right and you’re wrong, so why don’t you just open a can of PBR or something for the both of us and we’ll discuss it later… or maybe never, because frankly this shit’s gone kinda stale. Dontcha think?

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  24. The study may indeed be flawed, but it could be the conclusions being drawn from it that are flawed.
    It may be true both that black people are more frequently struck from the jury AND that race is not the reason for it.

    It also may be that people with a racial agenda could care less as long as they can use the study as a means to their end.

    Steve (661c31)

  25. I can’t read the WSJ article because it’s subscription only, but this LA Times’ article suggests the basis for the court’s decision was race:

    The decision by Superior Court Judge Gregory A. Weeks in Cumberland County, N.C., could have an effect on death penalty cases nationwide; for years, such cases have included arguments by black defendants and civil rights lawyers that prosecutors keep blacks off juries for racial reasons.

    In a 167-page order harshly critical of prosecutors, Weeks said they “intentionally used the race of [jury pool] members as a significant factor in decisions to exercise peremptory strikes in capital cases.” He ruled that discrimination was a factor not only in the case he heard, involving convicted murderer Marcus Reymond Robinson, but also in other capital cases involving black defendants across North Carolina.

    Weeks, who is black, said “race was a materially, practically and statistically significant factor in the decision to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection by prosecutors” statewide during the time Robinson was on trial. That was enough, he said, “to support an inference of intentional discrimination.”
    ***
    In a statement, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys said that prosecutors across the state “strongly dispute that race is a significant factor in death penalty cases.” Claims of racial bias are best determined by a judge at trial, the group said, not by “generalized statistics” presented two decades after a conviction.

    Prosecutors had challenged the statistical study, saying it looked at only 173 trials over a 20-year period, when 696 capital murder trials were held in the state. They also pointed out that jurors can be struck for many reasons other than race.

    Weeks said claims by prosecutors that black jurors were struck for “racially neutral” reasons were “pretextual or substantially invalid.”

    “Being black does predict whether the state will strike” a potential juror, Weeks said.

    Prosecutors were expected to appeal Weeks’ ruling; they have 60 days to do so.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  26. I think decisions like this (that are based on the system rather than on a specific case) undermine confidence in the law. I’d much rather see legislatures fix the system and see courts resolve specific cases.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  27. MayBee @ 18 and 20: see that, peeples? A class act all the way!

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  28. Here is the Michigan University Study the law is based on. Page 37 is interesting, especially Section 700.

    720 = Juror admitted that race of defendant or victim would affect decision
    721 = The race of the defendant would affect juror’s decision
    722 = The race of the victim would affect juror’s decision

    This could work both ways with regard to race. To answer this would directly depend on how honest the juror is with themselves about their own prejudices.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  29. #28 — Now that we’re past the sniping, I’m genuinely curious (esp since Patterico and several others are lawyers and I’m not one): how does a judge have standing to determine whether an academic study of this sort, done in an esoteric field (to the judge, that is) is “reliable” or not?

    I read lots of academic studies, and some fall within my range of expertise so I can judge them, most fall out of my range so I simply judge them based on common sense and proper reasoning, which could of course be mistaken, and many are so beyond my intellectual range that I have to say, I’m just not competent to judge this.

    A trait I suspect is more honored in the breach than th’observance.

    What’s you guys’ experience??

    d. in c. (17012e)

  30. This story is kinda like Pigford….

    If you can prove a correlation between race and something (regardless of causation), racism must be involved…. doesn’t matter if that is true… doesn’t matter if it can be applied to a specific situation… a blanket blame on racism.

    Auntie Fraud (2f38aa)

  31. DRJ – that all just seems wrong on so many levels.

    JD (9e6048)

  32. he’s not been better
    than teh Bobby Goldsboro
    but he’s being good

    Colonel Haiku (f4b1c2)

  33. d. in c. – Have you purchased your island or compound yet so that you and your clan can live and breed in safety and racial purity away from dirty mongrel ravening criminal hordes?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. Well, no, a judge cannot take judicial notice of an academic study. It has to be introduced into evidence, with a foundation for authenticipity and reliability, both subject to questionioning, and the study itself subject to the jurisdiction’s standard for expert testimony.

    nk (875f57)

  35. Let’s assume that the study is about oral morphine. You might call in somebody from the FDA or from the manufacturer. He would say how the study was done and why it’s conclusions meet the scientific standard recognized by the jurisdiction.

    nk (875f57)

  36. d. in c.,

    I’m not a trial lawyer but, in general, the trial judge decides who is qualified to testify as an expert witness and what evidence will be admitted at trial. The rules of evidence and applicable case law governs how the judge makes that decision.

    However, in this case, it’s my understanding the North Carolina Racial Justice Act specifically allows capital defendants to use statistical evidence to show bias in the way the death penalty was imposed. That’s a very different use of expert evidence than is allowed in death penalty cases. Evidence of bias in that case is what courts can and do require.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  37. If this is a such a good and fair law, why limit it to death penalty cases? Why not allow statistical evidence in any case?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  38. In fact, why have juries at all? Why not just make law like medicine and apply the statistically most likely result (treatment) for the facts (symptoms) presented?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  39. Death penalty cases and First Amenddment cases are outfliers as we generally understand the law. They undergo much stricter scrutiny (in both the term of art and not term of art sense) and the defendant is granted every possible benefit of the doubt.

    nk (875f57)

  40. I’ve got to get a new keyboard.

    nk (875f57)

  41. Obviously I don’t like this law, and neither does the North Carolina legislature because they voted to repeal it last year. Unfortunately Democratic Governor Bev Perdue vetoed it. The North Carolina Senate voted to override the veto earlier this year, but the General Assembly did not have the necessary votes.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  42. If it’s a good idea, nk, it’s a good idea and should be used elsewhere. If it’s a bad idea, it shouldn’t be used at all.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. I think decisions like this (that are based on the system rather than on a specific case) undermine confidence in the law.

    If there’s a disparity between how racial minorities and whites view the justice system, then there are two ways to go.

    If whites by and large view the justice system as objective and fair, and minorities do not, you can either fix the flaws in the system to increase everyone’s confidence in the system. Or you can go through these sorts of statistical gymnastics to undermine everyone’s confidence in the system.

    It really depends on whether or not you’re attached to the system or want to replace it with something more “fair” than that dreamed up by an 18th century white male power structure eager to stack the deck to preserve its privileges. If you’re in the latter camp, then the point of using these studies isn’t to make the system more “fair,” but to make sure that everyone knows what it’s like to stare down the barrels of a system that was designed to be unfair from the start.

    Steve (661c31)

  44. Illinois struggled for a long time over racial disparity in executions. It found that it was not the race of the defendant that mattered so much as the race of the victims. Correct or incorrect, the legislature took the responsibility and did not shift it to the courts. It abolished the death penalty in Illinois.

    nk (875f57)

  45. Is this some surreal form of judicial affirmative action where future defendants receive leniency based on statistical models of actions taken by prosecutors and juries in cases that have nothing to do with the specific trial in question?

    JD (9e6048)

  46. _____________________________________________

    Unfortunately Democratic Governor Bev Perdue vetoed it.

    That just about sums it up.

    But there is an admittedly racial angle — but a fine, narrow line at that — to the issue of jurors and their selection. Since a very huge portion (90-plus percent) of black America is of the left, if a prospective juror is black, odds are he or she will be liberal. In turn, since I’m more skeptical of the common sense and judgment of those on the left — and if I were responsible for choosing jurors — I’d always be skittish about people most likely to be of the left.

    Mark (411533)

  47. The thing that is never mentioned by the “blacks are unfairly treated” crowd is that so-called Aggravating Factors determine whether the death penalty will be sought in a murder trial. These can be multiple victims, another crime in addition to murder (rape, robbery, torture, etc).

    When blacks kill whites, the above Aggravators are usually present. Google “Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom” or “Wichita Massacre.”

    DN (b2f1fb)

  48. Steve:

    If you’re in the latter camp, then the point of using these studies isn’t to make the system more “fair,” but to make sure that everyone knows what it’s like to stare down the barrels of a system that was designed to be unfair from the start.

    Do you think the American legal system is a farce (as this statement suggests), or are you articulating what you believe the authors of this legislation think?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  49. The last guy to be executed in Illinois was a Greek, “the first Aryan race in Europe”. He mutilated women to death in horrific ways. He needed to be removed from our atmosphere. We can find any number of white monsters on death row.

    As a lawyer, I do not see how these racial disparity rules comply with the basic holdings of Gregg and Furman that every death penalty case must be judged on an individual basis.

    nk (875f57)

  50. JD,

    In fairness, this is legislation so I shouldn’t blame the judge for implementing it. But I do. There’s no better way to undermine the judicial system than to make it a statistical system that is not based solely on the specific facts in a specific case.

    Also, as nk says, if you have this much concern about how the death penalty operates in your state, then abolish it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  51. Hard to know what to make of this. I’m tempted to say the judge was probably acting with racial animus, but then that’s the (stupid) law, so maybe not.

    Blame the legislature.

    Random (fba0b1)

  52. Do you think the American legal system is a farce (as this statement suggests), or are you articulating what you believe the authors of this legislation think?

    Perhaps not exactly what the authors of the legislation think, but definitely what the advocates lobbying for such legislation think.

    I can’t help but understand this as a sort of “turnabout is fair play” maneuver as seen by those sharing Al Sharpton’s worldview.

    Steve (661c31)

  53. Ow! I just heard an idiot bell go off (or maybe an idiot Bell, as it were) and it woke me from my Sunday nap.

    Did it come from #43? Or was he just being clever and Swiftian…

    d. in c. (17012e)

  54. Well, upon review, one idiot bell definitely clanged at #33.

    Meantime thanks to all you law people for clarifying that.

    Here’s a question: (abstract and it’ll never fly I know, but still):

    If statistical info is to be granted legal standing as in this case, then why not in the Zimmerman case? Why not argue that statistically most burglaries and rapes are committed by young black males, that young black males in a strange neighborhood are statistically more likely to be there casing properties for opportunities to commit burglary or rape, that young black males are more likely to sucker-punch their victims and then inflict head trauma while the victim is prone — all fully observed and statistically supported traits.

    Yes! By all means, let’s enter lots and lots of statistics into the record… but only if it’s across the board, eh?

    d. in c. (17012e)

  55. Where is the data showing this?

    Alex (15f526)

  56. Showing this:

    Why not argue that statistically most burglaries and rapes are committed by young black males, that young black males in a strange neighborhood are statistically more likely to be there casing properties for opportunities to commit burglary or rape, that young black males are more likely to sucker-punch their victims and then inflict head trauma while the victim is prone — all fully observed and statistically supported traits.

    A lack of detailed and objective statistics will be taken as an admission of irrational racism.

    Alex (15f526)

  57. d. in c.,

    If statistical info is to be granted legal standing as in this case, then why not in the Zimmerman case?

    Because this type of general statistical evidence isn’t allowed in criminal cases, where you have to prove a specific person did a specific act.

    Studies can be admissible in some cases, such as civil cases involving commercial issues. But absent a statute like the North Carolina Racial Justice Act that specifically makes it admissible, I frankly can’t think of any reason why a general study like this might be admissible in a criminal trial.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  58. To clarify: Studies might be cited in appellate briefs that are arguing for or against specific policy positions, especially in cases that involve issues of public interest like the death penalty. But, other than this Racial Justice Act, I’m not aware of any rule of evidence that allows the admission of general statistical studies as evidence or proof at the trial level in a criminal case.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. DRJ — yes I quite understand your point and I concur. Thanks for shedding light on it though. But I was doing a good old-fashioned reductio ad absurdum in the grand old manner. It says something about the health of our political discourse that such things can no longer be seen clearly a mile or two away, all with crows sittin’ on ’em and sitch.

    d. in c. (17012e)

  60. Oh, and by the way: Alex — you just rang the idiot bell loud enough to sit twenty for supper. G’awn, now, chow!

    d. in c. (17012e)

  61. We have a rational system of justice, Alex asshole, and we do not convict people based on propensity but only on what they have done with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Were you a difficult birth, BTW?

    nk (875f57)

  62. “It says something about the health of our political discourse that such things can no longer be seen clearly a mile or two away, all with crows sittin’ on ‘em and sitch.”

    d. in c. – Island or compound?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. d. in c.,

    I’m terrible at spotting sarcasm online. Sorry about that!

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  64. I see it, daleyrocks.

    nk (875f57)

  65. Don’t know that it was sarcasm, DRJ.

    nk (875f57)

  66. 59: thanks for the timely reply and being so frank. Admission accepted. Bye now!

    Alex (15f526)

  67. 60: where did I say something different. And watch the profanity, it calls into question your reading skills…. Which is a bad thing on a blog.

    Alex (15f526)

  68. I’m calling into question your ability to live without welfare and food stamps. Which is a bad thing in life.

    nk (875f57)

  69. nk – It’s based on the overall body of comments.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. d. in c. – Any of this look familiar:

    “I’m a white gentile man from a working-class stratum who went to Harvard about twenty-odd years ago. (I’m fudging a bit so as to not be identifiable.)”

    “The classes and instructors (I was a history/foreign cultures type) are pretty good, sort of high-rent adequate, but not exactly through the roof (there are of course always exceptions, and I can’t speak for the hard sciences. The handful of hard science classes I took were essentially taught by Asian immigrant section leaders with poor English and bad accents whom I could barely understand.)”

    “But undergrad people I worked with in a variety of informal disciplines are now world leaders in their fields (I’m not without a bit of that cachet m’self, chuckle chuckle, but I’m by no means a top leader in my field the way some of my peers have become).”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  71. 67: cute, but ultimately kind of lame… And not really relevant is it ma’am?

    Alex (15f526)

  72. #69 — hey cool, now I have an internet stalker!

    Now I can trade war stories with my beautiful girlfriend, who has Real Life stalkers!

    Huh. Good thing I know a LOT of LEOs.

    You readin’ me, daleyrocks?

    I’ve seen punk-asses nailed to walls in a wide variety of interesting styles. Meet me for a drink some time, I’ll explain. And I’ll refer you to a stylist afterwards, when your punk-ass hair has turned white.

    Now scurry away, back into the woods, and NEVER address me again.

    Do you understand?

    Do you?

    Over and out.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  73. Patterico, if you have any problems with my last comment, please feel free to contact me. At the moment I’m rather alarmed that there are people who are worked-up enough to do oppo research on me in what I considered to be a rather casual and lax conversation. Well, the internet is all sorts of things, innit. If in your opinion I’ve crossed any lines then I’ll be happy to un-cross them and withdraw. Your place, your rules, I’m happy to abide by that.

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  74. Now scurry away, back into the woods, and NEVER address me again.

    Do you understand?

    Do you?

    Over and out.

    d. in c. – Blow me ’til I burst you supercilious twit. Read me?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. Signing off for the night, I’ve got a girlfriend to ride.

    I’ll check back with your state university arse in the morrow. Heh.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  76. I am so not looking forward to the nutty, bizarre, and unpleasant people who are going to be posting in the run up to November. This kind of nonsense is the tip of the noxious iceberg.

    Simon Jester (57134c)

  77. I know a lot of LEOs, too. I helped send one to prison for life and his partner for ten years. I also know a lot of ex-prisoners.

    nk (875f57)

  78. Whose sentences I shortened, or helped save from the needle.

    nk (875f57)

  79. Not to mention that I’m now staying across the street from a halfway house whose denizens are on speaking terms with me. Maybe you’d like to meet us. Do you like sushi?

    nk (875f57)

  80. You could talk to us about “riding your girlfriend fist”.

    We’re the real thing, here, asshole.

    nk (875f57)

  81. nk: well whenever you get yourself a rest from your rather busy career, you might take the time to look in a dictionary and check it for “context”. I actually pity your clients as you don’t seem to have a good grasp of what words mean. Hmph. Maybe they should look up “malpractice,” d’ye think?

    Now piss off, child.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  82. In case anybody was wondering, those paragraphs I cut and pasted that got our Harvard B-list celebrity so excited came from Steve Sailer’s blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. They’ve contrived a sort of paradox by which it is very hard to justify sentencing anybody black to death, at least in theory.

    Now the actual discrimination that occurs is according to the race of the victim, although that isn’t really right either. It’s probably tied to geographic location, amopunt of work for the prosecutor, and socioeconomic status of the victim, the victim’s family, and witnesses.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  84. Could be, Sammy. Last decent study in Chicago, 87% of murder victims were young black and Hispanic males, in poor neighborhoods. There’s the “no snitch” ethic, and the “what else is new” attitude.

    nk (875f57)

  85. #82 “came from Steve Sailer’s blog”

    Holy Christ, this guy really is a stalker.

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  86. “Holy Christ, this guy really is a stalker.”

    d. in c. – I thought you Harvard guys were supposed to be smart? Locating public comments on a public blog is stalking? Seriously?

    You need to go back to riding your beautiful girlfriend, Skippy. I’ll bet she loves it when you say classy Harvard stuff like that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  87. Patterico: when it comes to a nonscientific view of taxonomy, as we have in so many purely human matters, tastes will naturally start to vary; some people might think X or Y is a bit of a weirdo; others, maybe not so much.

    Personally I think your commenter “daleyrocks” has crossed the line into obsessive weirdo. Most people here just argue on a thread for the fun of it, and then go home to their regular lives, a bit more jolly from having had a good stoush. But this guy has been digging around the web trying to find information about me that isn’t relevant to a given thread. Sounds a bit fixated to me, or maybe worse.

    I don’t know if you think that’s weird, but I definitely do.

    Do what you think is best.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  88. Personally, I don’t understand people who like to fight, and in particular people who try to pick those fights. Bizarre. Ivy League or state school, it sure doesn’t look smart, nor civil.

    Simon Jester (106d39)

  89. “Personally I think your commenter “daleyrocks” has crossed the line into obsessive weirdo.”

    d. in c. – I love it when you Harvard snots lose your sh*t.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. You need to write in more of an overheated “twee” style to reach this narcissist, daley.

    Because he is only posting to fight with people.

    Simon Jester (106d39)

  91. Simon: I would say this is toning it down:

    d. in c. – I love it when you Harvard snots lose your sh*t.

    Personally, and just speculation mind you, daleyrock’s comments are often troll like, in that he is trying to rile people up, insult personally, etc and ignore the issues at hand. Now I don’t know if that is on purpose, or just bad social skills or something else, but it is there.

    Alex (15f526)

  92. With all due respect, Alex, you just went through some of this. I haven’t read your thread contributions, but did you start off being snide and snarky and faux-superior? I have never, and I mean never, see daley be a jerk to someone who started out polite and politely disagreed with him.

    Feel free to disagree with that if you like, daley. Just my opinion.

    Simon Jester (106d39)

  93. Alex – thanks for the laugh.

    JD (9e6048)

  94. 91: my error. I was mixing up JD and daleyrocks.

    Alex (15f526)

  95. d. in c. – You can rest easy, you paranoid f*ck. I am not stalking you or attempting to breech your anonymity.

    It is interesting that you think you important enough for me to taker the time to do that, even if I could. You’re not. You’re a D-List blog d*ckhead.

    Oftentimes when a commenter is acting like a jerk, like you, it is illustrative to see where else the commenter hangs out on the internet. It is easy and not time consuming at all.

    Your ignorance betrays you.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. Sorry for the typos.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. I rest my case.

    Weirdo.

    d. in c. (17012e)

  98. Just to be clear:

    You said, “It is easy and not time-consuming at all.”

    It is also easy and not time-consuming to f#ck a dog.

    But normal people DON’T DO IT.

    That’s the point you aren’t understanding, you bloody weirdo.

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  99. “I rest my case.”

    d. in c. – Your case has already been made and observed, Skippy.

    Go ride your beautiful girlfriend.

    Pure class!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. Oh, and by the way…

    You spelled “breech” wrong. You mean “breach,” you f#cking illiterate monkey.

    (hums)

    Ten thousand men of Hahvahd
    Claimed victory, today…

    You know the song, right?

    (spits)

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  101. I’ve been on the receiving end of daley’s snark, and he’s not a dick to you unless you’re being a dick. If you can’t take a little light ribbing without getting your panties in a wad, maybe debating politics and law are things you should avoid.

    Ghost (52b288)

  102. “…You spelled “breech” wrong. You mean “breach,” you f#cking illiterate monkey….”

    Are you serious? Given your posts?

    Okay, enough with the trolling. Knock off the Percy Dovetonsils act and be a grown up.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  103. 101: agree. I hate it when people jump on misspellings or other grammar/syntax issues. Irrelevant! However, if it calms things down give the guy +1 internets.

    Alex (15f526)

  104. It’s obvious d. n c. learned and “perfected” his commenting style by how it’s done on the far left side of the blogosphere.
    (Nasty, vulgar, and clueless.)

    elissa (652e69)

  105. Not to mention daley’s “Sorry for the typos” comment, as if he were acknowledging his misspelling before an illiterate f**king monkey saw them.

    Ghost (f98166)

  106. Sorry that was in response to Sammy and Alex.

    Ghost (f98166)

  107. 103, 104; yes. And JD too.

    Alex (15f526)

  108. “It is also easy and not time-consuming to f#ck a dog.”

    d. in c. – Tell us more about your experiences.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. 107: ok, that made me snort my cola out me nose! 😀

    Alex (15f526)

  110. “I’ve been on the receiving end of daley’s snark, and he’s not a dick to you unless you’re being a dick.”

    Thanks Ghost

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  111. Ghost @ 101: well, that’s worth contemplating. I can sort of see where you’re coming from… but can you do the same? “Can’t take a little light ribbing”? Buddy, you have no idea. Think of it. (Operative word being “think”). Imagine. Empathize. Et cetera.

    #102: “Are you serious? Given your posts?”

    By all means, please do expand. I’m prepared to defend every word I’ve written.

    Go on.

    This’ll be fun.

    (Note to bystanders: lookit, to me at least, this is all just internet theater. I don’t really have anything interesting hanging on this, and my best guess is that, with the exception of the crypto-psychopath “daleyrocks,” nobody else does neither. Tune in later for more interactive amusement! Now, go and do a bit of work for a change!!)

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  112. Oh, good grief, now elissa has leaped in. Darling I thought you had better sense than this. But maybe you have a secret taste for Punch-and-Judy shows? One can never tell after all, even Joyce Carol Oates has a taste for boxing.

    “And suddenly in walked Bud,
    And then the joint started jumping.”

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  113. “…this is all just internet theater. I don’t really have anything interesting hanging on this…”

    Oh, that’s abundantly clear: you just like to fight, in a nice safe anonymous context. That’s why you are here, by your own admission. It’s boring. Some folks post here to discuss things. But not you.

    “…Now, go and do a bit of work for a change!!)…”

    Oh, my. And the ironic part is that you clearly become annoyed when people take that specific tone with you.

    Which takes us back to the first point: why you post on someone else’s blog.

    Can you consider “playing” elsewhere, or just posting a link to your own site where people can go to “battle” with you? Or you might consider picking a fight over at Protein Wisdom as an alternative.

    You are supposedly a man in middle age, displaying this kind of faux-tough nonsense?

    As Jerry Seinfeld says: “Really?”

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  114. “Huh. Good thing I know a LOT of LEOs.

    You readin’ me, daleyrocks?

    I’ve seen punk-asses nailed to walls in a wide variety of interesting styles. Meet me for a drink some time, I’ll explain. And I’ll refer you to a stylist afterwards, when your punk-ass hair has turned white.

    Now scurry away, back into the woods, and NEVER address me again.

    Do you understand?

    Do you?”

    The above was from a rational Harvard man just here to discuss things.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  115. I’ve met daleyrocks. He’d feed d. in c. to his dog. One biscuit, one bacon strip, one d. in c.

    nk (875f57)

  116. If you went to a humble land grant institution, you are unworthy of addressing his awesomeness.

    JD (96c751)

  117. I’m getting a malevolent Walter Mitty vibe, nk and daley. I just want him to go away. Lots of folks argue here in ways for which I do not care, but also share information and insights that are worthwhile.

    A grown man bragging to anonymous people about “riding his girlfriend,” and then coming back immediately to battle some more…well, I suspect that the person in question is working out some issues. Ivy Leaguer and all.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  118. I imagine his girlfriend, if any, is inflatable.

    nk (875f57)

  119. You know, I could spend all day expertly slicing off the naïve aspects of all of your various ignorant mis-readings, but honestly, what good would it do?

    Y’all are married to your egos, as most people are, and likely me too if some wise person (assuredly not found here) were to point it out.

    C’mon, folks: This has gotten boring. If I had the time (and I don’t, and you don’t either) I’d rip a new one for each and every one of y’all, but like I say, you’re dug in, so I don’t feel that a frontal charge is constructive. This little storm has started to become About Me personally, which an antagonistic mind would be happy to label Narcissistic, and maybe somebody normal would just call Not Very Interesting.

    That’s what I think: it’s not very interesting, except in a swordsmanship sort of way.

    So let’s get back to the regular blog stuff, eh? Talking about politics and the economy and what-not. It’s the reason we all originally came here.

    See you there.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  120. You are all to stoopid to conversate with Steve.

    JD (9e6048)

  121. Have fun at Charlie Jones, d. in c.

    nk (875f57)

  122. Definitely imagine that that you stated. Your favourite reason appeared to be at the net the easiest thing to take note of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed even as people consider worries that they plainly don’t realize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as smartly as outlined out the entire thing without having side-effects , other folks could take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thanks

    pokemon online (20150e)

  123. I thought #118 was the single best proof that some people are irony proof that I have ever witnessed.

    It belongs in the Troll Hall of Fame.

    Hopefully this fellow will go away.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  124. No big deal, Simon. Like I tell people when I offer them my cooking, “You know where your garbage can is”.

    nk (875f57)

  125. Its capitalization is gettin’ weird. Hope it’s not that horrorshow Ken at Popehat wrote about.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  126. “Some people are irony proof”

    Wow, you leave ’em a peace offering, and you employ a few basic rhetorical devices to make it feel like you’re not coming from a point of weakness, and still… nuthin’.

    Okay, dude with the irony proof. Lay out what you thought was so ironic, and how come I didn’t get it. Go ahead: you’re a master of irony it appears, you should have no trouble exposing your. mastery to a tiny bit of criticism, in the highly unlikely event it should even appear. So let’s see your reasoning, you’ve nought to fear.

    As they say in grade-school math tests: Show your work.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  127. d. in c.,

    I can’t think of any reason to attack a state school like Michigan State (as you did in comment 5) unless you’re an elitist when it comes to higher education. Maybe that attitude is why you are getting pushback now.

    I’m sure there are ways in which elite schools are better than state schools but if you are an elite school grad, how does your approach help you convince anyone of their value?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  128. “I thought #118 was the single best proof that some people are irony proof that I have ever witnessed.”

    Simon – Truly a masterpiece of cluelessness.

    “You know, I could spend all day expertly slicing off the naïve aspects of all of your various ignorant mis-readings”

    I’m beginning to think the only thing our humble correspondent might evidence some expertise in is the dog f*cking he decided to introduce to the thread. You can’t take the Brooklyn out of the boy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  129. DRJ,

    This clown could not get into Kaplan’s for a GED.

    If he got out of jail first.

    nk (875f57)

  130. Pretty element of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to say that I acquire in fact loved account your weblog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing in your feeds or even I fulfillment you get admission to persistently quickly.

    care skin (ec4306)

  131. Wasn’t that response classic? It’s right up there with “I work here is done.”

    DRJ, who knows if this character even went to Harvard? Based on his angry angry hippos style, does it matter?

    Every post reveals another layer of weirdness.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  132. DRJ — you know I don’t really care about any of this, and I’m certainly not here as some elitist who’s come to p#ss on the proles. I’m a working-class guy from Brooklyn for heaven’s sake. I promise you my name isn’t Wentworth Wentington the Third, as people have made me out to be.

    This all started, absurdly enough, because I chuckled mildly at the thought that sociologists (best discipline evah!) from MSU (best school evah!) were determining legal precedent on an important matter. Is that really so terrible? Are you prepared to argue that MSU is the finest school in the land? In Michigan, even? As John Lennon once said, when asked if Ringo was the best drummer in rock n roll, “He isn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles.”

    I’ve been misread from start to finish here, and it’d be interesting to query why. I first mentioned that my girlfriend was good-looking in the context of stalking, because she has been stalked by weirdos before because she’s good-looking, and it’s a practical issue in my household, and a commenter here was getting kind of stalk-y and it was freaking me out because I’ve experienced the problem before. Is that self-regarding? I don’t think so. People have had a lot of fun with the “riding” thing, but come on, it’s the internet, it’s rhetoric. I could have just as easily said “It’s late, and this bottle of scotch won’t drink itself.”

    This crowd have got a seriously tin ear for rhetoric. It’s why I’ve been having a little fun with y’all. I can’t believe you’ve been unable to see that.

    I could go on, but there isn’t any point. To say “grow the eff up!” would seem petulant. I’ll leave you instead with the sort of penny-candle insights I got as a kid, holed up reading all night in the laundry room: read more. Good grief! (Who said?)

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  133. Simon – A short while back elissa mentioned the possibility of our old friend Somerset returning which I doubted because there had been no mention of Harvard. Now with the denigration of state schools and digging up a mention of Harvard, I would say the probabilities have changed.

    Also, I’m wondering based on his expertise in the area if d. in c. could tell us if when doing a male dog it is customary to offer a reach around?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  134. Now that was funny.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  135. The “peace offering” he claims to have left must be caught in the spam filter, because I didn’t see one from him anywhere on the thread above 4:57pm.

    elissa (652e69)

  136. “Somerset,” Daley? Honestly? You had a troll who called himself that?

    Winning, to quote Charlie Sheen.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  137. “I’ve been misread from start to finish here, and it’d be interesting to query why.”

    Now claiming victim status.

    Check.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  138. I’m guessing he’s some iteration of SummitNJ, daley, but I think that’s probably the same person you’re thinking of. Among other things his little trademark explosion at me earlier was kind of a tip off.

    elissa (652e69)

  139. d. in c.,

    I understand your concern about stalking, especially here where the line between talking online and real life sometimes seems a little blurred. But I want to offer you some advice and it’s the same advice I would tell anyone. I’ve even said this to Patterico.

    Sarcasm doesn’t come across well on the internet. Sometimes it’s because people can’t tell you’re kidding and they think you’re ridiculing them. Sometimes everyone “gets” it but, later, when the moment is gone and other people read an old post/comments, they don’t get it at all.

    This doesn’t mean we all have to be humorless online, but I think it does mean we have to engage in humor that comes at our own expense and not at others. And, really, what’s wrong with that?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  140. Also, unless one is very skilled and deft with timing, words, and knows their audience well, sarcasm overshadows any salient comment made. It becomes the focal point and the well thought out comment gets lost in sarcasm’s provocation.

    One almost has to weigh out what’s more important: making a dig and/or trying to be funny, or having their comment be read and considered on its own merits.

    I hate to see this thread devolve like it has. It was really interesting to me and I had a lot questions.

    Whatever.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  141. And that, Dana, unfortunately is probably the whole point of his online antics. It is an interesting topic worth discussing and for some reason d.n c. doesn’t want people to talk about it. I wonder why he doesn’t.

    elissa (652e69)

  142. DRJ — well thanks, regardless if I agree or not, that’s at least a version of a non-insane and/or stupid remark that I’ve read on this thread lately. I’ve always liked your comments and will probably continue to, if I lurk here. Dunno about that yet. But I’m definitely gone as a commenter. Youse dudes have got your wish. Just so ya know: I’m not splitting because of the insults, which haven’t been particularly funny and not at all stinging. Hire a better insult guy. No, it’s the obtuseness that gets under my skin. Ah well, I’m quite sure you won’t miss me. Cheers! Only kidding, who would say “cheers” to this crowd? It would imply I thought you had any class.

    d. in c. (ac417f)

  143. I don’t really care, elissa, what the point of anyone’s antics are – they just need to stop taking themselves so damn seriously. The subject is Racial Justice and the impact therein of it in NC. I read that in Chicago this weekend, a black man intentionally attacked a white man, stating that he was upset over Trayvon’s death and looking for a white person to attack. I see this Racial Justice law as having unfurled during the ripest time possible in our racially polarized nation. This should be of concern to every state, I would think especially those of us in liberal controlled ones.

    I just want the thread to be about what the post intended it to be.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  144. Careful. I don’t know much, but I do know sneaky, smirky, deceptive, manipulative punks.

    nk (875f57)

  145. Oh, one last thing before I go. And this is for your own good, pipples.

    My little ride through your ranks exposed some astonishing weaknesses: good Lawd, are y’all really so prickly? You realize Harvard isn’t magical, it’s just a place. You can take the T there, lots of people do. You can go sit in the Yenching Library like I did, but probably for not as many hours. Do you really curl up in such irrational defensive fetus-postures at the tiniest whiff of seignieurial hauteur? Christ on a crutch, you know I got the sh#t beat out of me for carrying a Bach score when I was ten years old (helloooo, Brooklyn!), and I had more dignity then, as a bloody-nosed pup, than you skraelings have got now.

    In case you haven’t noticed, conservatism is on the back foot these days.

    Better raise your game, night is LONG.

    d. in c. (17012e)

  146. You would like Chuck Pelto. Chuck, you would like Steve. Maybe you could get together, talk about how effin awesome you each are.

    JD (318f81)

  147. skraeling? Really?

    I guess that makes this character a Viking.

    Oh dear God, I love trolls like this. True comedy.

    I think I called it: a snotty Walter Mitty. The real Walter Mitty was pleasant and kind. Though he did like to brag, it’s true.

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  148. I second Dana’s comment that perhaps we could discuss what the post was about.

    DRJ has tried to get the discussion on track several times, as has Dana, as have others.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  149. Sure, I could post this:

    http://youtu.be/E5IQnQhzMSI

    But Patterico’s point is right on.

    Why isn’t the press concerned about black on black crime? Or black on white crime? Instead of “white hispanic” crime?

    Simon Jester (bc0700)

  150. JD @ 146: Hah ha, I like that, that’s the real thing, cheeky and skeptical and not bitter. Good for you. There’s hope yet.

    Agree that you should get back to the main point of the post. And I’m actually sorry that this whole bizarre detour happened, it really wasn’t my intention. And I object to being called a troll: I’ve been a serious commenter here for quite a while, this one simply swirled out of control and it wasn’t all my doing. Well, whatever: what can ye do. Life is weird. So long.

    d. in c. (cae88c)

  151. OK, I’m still trying to figure why they had to review the case, 18 years later.

    narciso (8d0f34)

  152. 147. I second Dana’s comment that perhaps we could discuss what the post was about.

    DRJ has tried to get the discussion on track several times, as has Dana, as have others.

    Perhaps this will be seen as taking the discussion off track, but I believe it goes to the heart of the matter.

    DRJ asked earlier if I believe the American justice system is a travesty. I don’t think my “no” was clear enough. No, I don’t see our justice system as a travesty. But I understand that the people who are motivated to lobby for laws such as a “racial justice act” do see it as such. From their point of view, it is such a racist travesty it cries out for “racial justice acts.”

    The first major point of a “racial justice act” isn’t to fix the system that is racist from its very roots. It’s to get an official admission from the legislatures responsible for the racist laws that make up the system that, yeah, it’s racist.

    The acknowledgement of a need for a “racial justice act” simply reinforces the contention that the system is inherently racist. Of course, that isn’t necessarily the belief of the legislators who have to be convinced these laws are needed. Generally speaking those who aren’t clued in have to be convinced they’re acting in the spirit of racial conciliation. Not that they’re being tricked into a confession of guilty-as-charged.

    In addition to getting the admission of guilt, the second main purpose of this particular “racial justice act” is to establish in the popular mind that race is always a significant factor in death penalty cases. Really, the only significant factor in those cases (and indeed all convictions). The system is so inherently racist that half-measures like a “racial justice act” can merely give us a glimpse of the scope of the racism, not accomplish the impossible task of fixing a thoroughly racist system.

    To the race-obsessed true-believers, the fact that people like DRJ will argue that there are race-neutral factors at all simply will be taken as evidence that they can’t or won’t acknowledge their own racism. Like George Zimmerman’s apology, these are simply self-serving rationales that camouflage the true nature of the current system of racial injustice.

    Again, these are not my views. But since I do comprehend them, for instance, I don’t see the irony in the fact that a “racial justice act” benefited a racist. Because from a certain twisted point of view, that’s exactly what our legal system has been doing from the very beginning. “Your side” (if you’re white) has been coddling racists from the start. It is an act of “racial justice” if “our side” (if you’re black) now “gets its turn.”

    The George Zimmerman case will play out in exactly this way. The individual elements of this case will only matter to “racists.” The fact that Zimmerman is hispanic, apparently had no particular animus towards blacks (in fact, protested in support of black individuals when he thought their rights had been violated), and may indeed have been attacked by Trayvon Martin on his way back to his truck are irrelevant.

    The only thing that matters to the race-obsessed left is that a “white man” can kill an “innocent” black teen and get away with murder. You don’t have to do a very intensive search to find opinion pieces on what sort of manslaughter conviction George Zimmerman should accept for the good of race relations in this country. The perception that whites can kill blacks with impunity is simply accepted by these liberals as a valid point of view, and Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence (just like the fact he isn’t white, or that Martin may have been partly responsible for the altercation that led to his own death) are irrelevant.

    DRJ, Pat, when you’re discussing our system of justice with proponents of “racial justice,” or for that matter “social” or “economic justice,” you’re not speaking the same language.

    Steve (661c31)

  153. The real Walter Mitty was pleasant and kind. Though he did like to brag, it’s true.

    It’s not bragging if you actually did it.

    How many times do trolls have to say Good-bye before they actually depart?

    AD-RtR/OS! (d17eb3)

  154. Steve, it seems that only the “Special Forces Solution” will work.

    AD-RtR/OS! (d17eb3)

  155. Youse dudes have got your wish. Just so ya know: I’m not splitting because of the insults, which haven’t been particularly funny and not at all stinging. Hire a better insult guy.

    — Youse smell, and youse have no friends; but if ya did, some of the best of them would be of a color a shade or two different than yours.

    Icy (9fb67b)

  156. AD-RtR/OS!, I don’t really understand what you mean by a “special forces solution.”

    I’m pointing out the fact that when you’re dealing with people whose every interest lies in maintaining a racial divide, you’re being suckered if they can convince you to believe any of their proposals are intended as acts of racial healing.

    Understanding that is the first step toward a solution.

    If you understand the terms of the debate, you’ll understand that that it’s impossible to compromise with people, like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to pick two of the higher-profile proponents of this line of attack, who need to maintain a siege mentality among blacks to maintain their positions (which is really only one aspect of the situation). They might convince people of good will to meet with them half way. But they’ll use the fact that you compromised with them at all as evidence you must have a lot to feel guilty about.

    Steve (661c31)

  157. I am extremely impressed together with your writing skills as well as with the layout to your blog. Is that this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Either way stay up the nice high quality writing, it is uncommon to peer a great blog like this one today..

    golf (930b0c)

  158. I have been surfing on-line more than 3 hours today, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s lovely worth sufficient for me. In my view, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the internet can be much more useful than ever before.

    Sale RV (541014)

  159. A person necessarily assist to make critically articles I would state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and so far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this actual submit extraordinary. Excellent job!

    Bmw 118i 2007 2008 And Repair Manual (23ec39)

  160. I think the proponents of the “racial justice act” chose the wrong test
    case to apply this new law. Saving a man who even the judge believes is
    guilty of kidnapping and murdering a teenager is not politically savvy.

    Jay Chong (3d7b24)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1475 secs.