This story is a sad one - a man shot and killed by a transit police officer on New Year's Day. Though it is terribly heartbreaking, I have a hard time believing that a police officer would shoot someone unprovoked. I say that because I'm just not sure why an unarmed man would ever need to be shot...unless he posed some sort of threat. At one point, I heard (or read) that he was shot in the back, although I don't know if this was the case. If so, then the officer has some problems because I'm not sure how an unarmed man facing away could pose a threat (unless the officer was trying to protect other people, not himself). That being said, if I look at this news clip I am supposed to believe that the police officer is a violent racist. Was it necessary to refer to the victim as an "unarmed black man"? Why not just "unarmed man"? How will this police officer get a fair trial (which everyone deserves) if the news is inciting racial tensions?
5 comments:
M.A...that's okay..With Obama's election, we know we're not a racist country anymore.Oh, we DON'T? WHY NOT?
You're right..why mention his color? They don't say "WHITE" when a white man's killed. Great catch. SO SAD.
It's ALWAYS about race, just like Booker T. Washington said. *sigh*
You certainly never see "an unarmed white man" do you?
I think there is video of the man (from a cell phone) that shows he was on his stomach when he was shot. Race or not... not cool.
It is interesting that their is implied racism by stating the race of the victim.
Post a Comment