Friday, March 30, 2012

Race Card Color Chart

We’ve been treated to a display of racism which should make your stomachs turn sour this past week.  The same folks seem to find their way into the spot light while at the same time working their magic to turn an already tragic event into a spectacle of epic proportions based on the color of a man’s skin.  I’m referring to Trayvon Martin’s being shot by a lighter colored man of Hispanic lineage whom the media characterized as “white”.

Here in Texas “State Representative Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, set his sights on revising Texas’ “Castle Doctrine,” similar to Florida’s “stand your ground” law linked to the Trayvon Martin slaying.”  This appeared in an article in the Houston Chronicle where it continued:

“Coleman says a 2007 change that eliminated a “duty to retreat before using deadly force” clause in the law makes it too easy for Texans to shoot first.”

Rep. Coleman apparently doesn’t believe individual citizens have the right to defend themselves and should run or hide until properly trained police officers arrive; never mind the chance you might already be maimed or killed.  I like the old truism, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.

“South Texas College of Law professor Gerald Treece, who believes Coleman’s proposal doesn’t stand much of a chance said, “You can be a man in Texas and stand up for yourself without retreating,”’

I don’t think the race pimps will be happy either way so maybe a different approach toward media coverage of those killing each other might be in order, a means of determining when a simple killing becomes a hate crime.  There needs to be a standardized color chart, something which the news media can use to determine if race may or may not have been a contributing factor when someone of “color” gets shot dead.

Several years ago our home owners association sent us a notice demanding we paint our house, an item on my “honey do list” which I agreed was needed.  A couple of days later another letter came, a form which I was supposed to fill out to get permission from the home owners association to paint the house.  I had to wonder, did their left hand know what the right hand was doing. 

I called the folks at the home owners association and was informed that the house had to be painted in “earth tones” which they approved; but when asked to supply me with a list of approved “earth tones” they couldn’t come up with one.  Eventually they dragged their feet to the point where I painted the house the same color as was on it already and told them if they didn’t like it to take me to court.  They dropped the issue and never did come up with a list of approved “earth tones”.

This morning I went by the local Home Depot and grabbed a variety of paint sample cards, twelve shades which come close to human pigmentation, close enough for “government work” anyway.  When the State legislature acts on this recommendation, here’s how it might work:

If a person is shot by someone whose skin color is at least 2 shades lighter then it automatically becomes a hate crime based on racial prejudice; however, if the person who gets shot down, blood running from the multiple gunshot wounds, if that person has a lighter skin tone then it's just your every day act of violence which is to be expected.  This should clarify the insanity which prevails in our society.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.  


Perri Nelson said...

No, it's still not balanced. If the person doing the shooting has a lighter skin tone - or is darker but of mixed race having any caucasion blood at all, even if it's several generations removed then it's white violence and a hate crime.

Or... if the media simply wants to attribute it to white racism - say when a black man shoots his crack dealer for charging him too much for his latests rocks - that's white racism at work because whites are forcing the black men into a life of drug abuse and crime.

For that matter all violence, no matter what color the victim or the perpetrator is is the result of white racism!

Only when white men admit to that and open their wrists for their crimes against minorities will there truly be an end to racism - only with the extermination of the white race!

T. F. Stern said...

Thank you Perri for jumping in with both feet. I'm sending your home address to Spike Lee so he can have the his goons attempt to alter your thinking. lol

Mike Landfair said...

I like this idea,and it obviously applied to the shooting that Obama ignored: two white guys shot to death by one African-American.

Is it a hate crime if a light skinned African-American shoots a dark-skinned African-American.

BTW, To me you have to hate in order to kill any other person in cold blood.

T. F. Stern said...

Mike, The entire "hate crime" nonsense is a redundancy which, in a way, demeans the crime of assault, rape or murder onto which it is added. You are correct.

The probligo said...

In amongst all of this, I still find it strange that when a Congresswoman was shot in broad daylight at a political meeting (so she was not alone) not one of those people present (some of whom must have been armed, surely?) was prepared to defend her.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo; I'm not sure your comment has much, if anything, to do with the topic. That said, how would we know if anyone other than law enforcement officers were armed at the time of that particular incident?

The probligo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The probligo said...

TF, it does but not as you might expect.

I have just read a long article in NYT regarding the Traybon shooting; it puts my observation into some kind of perspective.

A very large part of the problem - with the Traybon and perhaps with the Gifford shooting - seems to stem from the "Stand Your Ground" Law.

The two points that I get from reading the article are -

First, there is disagreement on whether it is good law or not; I am in no position to judge that.

Second, it is very unclear whether "Stand Your Ground" might apply to the defense of another person.

So there is the connect.

I note from last night's news that total homicides in NZ are down this past year - to 34.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo; One mistake you may have made was to waste your time reading the New York Times, a once proud paper which has been reduced to being used best as liners under bird cages.

As far as so called "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" legislation; these are attempts to articulate a natural law which existed long before there were governments. Each man has the "natural" right, I prefer to call it a God given right; but that is for another discussion, each man has the right to defend his property and/or his life when confronted by anyone who would rob him of his property or life. He needs no legislative body to explain when his life or property is not important, not to wait for "trained law enforcement" or anyone else for that matter. Man has the right and needs no permission to defend his property or his life.

Other countries may wish to surrender their natural rights; however, in a constitutional republic such as we have here in the US, no majority can legislate away a natural or God given right, not even if there is a substantial majority who disagree.

David said...

Remember: when seconds count, the police are just minutes away...

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Crazy isn't it, MLKs dream still remains out of reach, the progressives are determined to judge based on the color of people's skin.

And here's some info on Zimmerman you won't get from the NYT.

And if probligo really wants to know the effect of guns on crime, he should look at the number of innocent and law-abiding people [women, elderly and weak in particular] who successfully defend themselves against criminals, rapists and murderers every day in the United States and other countries where people are actually allowed to defend themselves.

I suspect he won't be terribly interested in that statistic though.

The probligo said...

Hey, RWT, show me the statistics; How the data was collected, by whom, the data collected, then I will judge on the basis of their validity.

F'rinstance there was a recorded case in my suburb two years ago of a 90 y-o who successfully defended herself from an intruder in her flat. She did NOT have a gun. But, how valid is that as a "statistic"? Zero.

The probligo said...

Afterthought RWT...

I can give you one comparative statistic on Gun crime (specifically homicide using a gun) -

USA firearm murders per 100,000 3.6

New Zealand firearm murders per 100,000 0.183

David said...

"F'rinstance there was a recorded case in my suburb two years ago of a 90 y-o who successfully defended herself from an intruder in her flat. She did NOT have a gun. But, how valid is that as a 'statistic'? Zero."

For once probligo has it right. Citing an anecdote (and a likely outlier at that) as evidence of anything is meaningless in any argument to general principles.

However, anyone with the chops to simply type "John Lott" into the search bar of any browser will find multiple references to two things:

Disingenuous emotional arguments against his research and

The facts, which support his thesis, "More Guns, Less Crime".

Of course, anti-gun folks seem to really, really hate facts.

David said...

BTW, anyone wanting to rebut Lott's thesis is welcome to his data sets and statistical protocols, available at his website,

Of course, I have yet to see anyone seeking to rebut his thesis actually make an honest, as opposed to deliberately, maliciously, blatantly dishonest, reference to his research.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"USA firearm murders per 100,000 3.6
New Zealand firearm murders per 100,000 0.183"

Your thinking is juvenile and essentially useless.

You can use the same method to argue for a ban on motor vehicles. I'm not wasting my time with you if this is the sort of mentality at work here.

Thanks David, John Lott, nuff said.

The probligo said...

David, thanks for the link to Lott. First time I have heard of him. Much in there to read for sure.

After a very brief initial scan, I have no beef with him or the methodology of his 1997:2002 surveys.

The question still remains in my mind though.

In NZ I can, if I wish, own almost any gun, the exceptions are MSSA and fully automatic weapons, and handguns. I do not have the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, in the street. BTW my personal choice (if it were ever needed) would be a shotgun, loaded with rocksalt; does wonders in keeping dogs off the farm.

Yet, the murder rate with guns in NZ is about 1/17 or so of the rate in the US. How can this be so? Despite RWT's total dismissal of the idea, it happens to be the truth, as inconvenient as that might be.

BTW, my response to Lott's survey would have been -

I have twice been assaulted in the street. Instance 1 - Age 17, I was bruised and a bit sore; my assailant scored a broken arm and I kept my wallet. Instance 2 - Age 3?, I suffered a split eyebrow from being head-butted; there were no firearms present; I needed two stitches in the wound.

I have lived at the same address for 35 years. In that time there has been only one instance of an individual trying to get access to the house - through a window, and unsuccessfully. If he had looked, the back door was secured by a three-lever lock. Ask TF how long it would take to get that open.

And to get back to TF's original point, I believe profiling is one of the worst things ever invented in the name of law enforcement.

The probligo said...

After reading Lott's paper "What Surveys Can Help Us Understand About Guns" I now know that 1.125% of Americans "used a gun defensively" in 1997.

I can accept that.

I suspect (guess) that the same survey in NZ would record perhaps 5 instances in the past 20 years.

I know of two instances in the past ten years where shots have been fired in the course of "a defensive action" and both resulted in prosecutions. One was found guilty of reckless use", the other "not guilty".

T. F. Stern said...

Time to move on; but the race baiting is still in full swing and the end is no where in sight.

Tell you what; I'll write a new race related article somewhere down the road and you guys can take swings at each other back and forth in the comment section or you can keep it going here, I really don't care.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

probligo, so the short version of your argument is that because you never needed a gun for 35 years, no one else should either.

And because a country that has both strict gun control in some parts and doesn't in others, together with cultures of criminality, drugs and other such contributing factors has a higher murder rate than your country which doesn't allow guns, therefore guns are the problem.

That sort of simplistic and short-sighted thinking might work for you, but not with me. You fail to convince me with your arguments on gun control probligo.