I almost feel sorry for these apparently ignorant and racist people. What they need is a gentle discussion to confront the reasons for their weird prejudices against people of different races to them.
What they’re going to get is a public shaming.
The question is: will this reform them? Will they see why what they wrote was so stupid and hurtful? Will they recant? Or will they dig in? Will others like them reconsider their views or will they become even more resentful and committed to the hideous views that seem to annoy their tormenters?
On the other hand, just letting this stuff go through to the keeper encourages it. Encourages these people to think that what they’re saying is a reasonable conclusion that reasonable people could reach.
UPDATE: Most of the twitterers in the above image (which won’t upload for some reason) have now deleted their accounts.
Moved On 
My goodness, this brings me back to my childhood. I would hear a great song on the radio. Then when the video would appear and I discovered the artist was black, a sense of disappointment and dislike, would envelop me.
Of course, a normal person (which I consider myself to be!) would grow out of this. I look back on this with mirth, to be honest, because I was just a little kid!
This also manifested itself when I discovered that certain (white) artists were NOT Australian. Especially hearing the American accent was a bit if a turn off.
Just thinking about that now is quite amazing. Does this suggest that the Tariff Walls that enveloped countries back then were not just economic, but cultural?
So what does this say about these tweeter’s? Is this why the likes of the people who comment on blog’s like this are continusously slapping their head in amazement at the indecency of so many people? Is it time to realise that the majority of people just have no clue? I wonder if they had these feelings when they were young like me?
Savvas Jonis
I’m glad these racists are being publicly named and shamed.
I reckon this process creates the best likelihood that someone actually will have “a gentle discussion to confront the reasons for their weird prejudices against people of different races to them”.
Sweeping it under the rug certainly wouldn’t have resulted in them having to confront anything.
People do not make all their choices based on rational, logical arguments. This is just not how human beings works. We live in a busy information-dense environment, and we have to use many other forms of ‘reasoning’ for working out what to think and do. Plenty of those methods are social, emotional and heuristic. This is exactly why social experiences are different from solitary experiences.
When you publicly shame this stuff (and when you do it in a way that this comes right back to the twitter-doorstep-equivalent of the people who dished it out), you contribute to a culture which has a bunch of social norms the reinforcement of which will actually help underprivileged and marginalised people (one such norm is “black people are _people_, and if you don’t care about them or if their existence bothers you, you are a shitty horrible person who needs to change”).
I don’t have any problem re-broadcasting something that was already publicly broadcast. It is not like someone hacked into these folk’s emails and broadcast a private racist email between them and their spouse. These people already broadcast (literally, to the entire internet), that they have a big problem with black people. Responding in exactly the same broadcast space, and doing it by reinforcing a social norm that is productive of equality, is a perfect response.
Maybe your calm, gentle conversations with these people would change their minds just as much (if you can ever get the conversation started, and if you can get them to hang around on twitter/email/whatever long enough for it to play out, and if they don’t just retreat from it back to their racist friendship circle where things are much more comfortable), but it would necessarily be a private event. This happened on a massive scale, and it impacted not just on the people who made the racist tweets, but on all the other racists who witnessed it.
So basically, Jeremy, I have absolutely no problem with it.
Those young twits are perfectly entitled to try and normalise their bigotry by broadcasting it to the world… and the world is perfectly entitled to send back a big “Fuck You!”.
Just as I commend the work of The Anti-bogan, I support any efforts to kick over the rocks under which these scumbags live.
Cheers.
BTW, just wait and see if the Movement Conservatives in the States don’t turn this into a way to bash Obama or cry foul at the covert attacks on White America via Liberal Jewish Hollywood.
Some wingnut, maybe Michelle Malkin, Dan Riehl or Rush Limbaugh, will pop up on Fox Nation and throw some red meat to it’s racist audience.
Cheers.
It won’t change their opinions, but it will shut them up*, so I’m all for it.
*I’m not advocating against free speech, just that the price people pay for freedom of speech is that they can and will be criticised. Them shutting up is their decision, which is also a manifestation of free speech.
Funny thing is when a leftist says something offensive there isn’t the same shrill outrage that seems to be reserved for bogans, rednecks and political opponents in general. At most a quiet recognition that the comment was a bit off with a few excuses thrown in.
So when Joe Biden said of Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” or when Bill Clinton said:“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” you don’t hear much at all from the left. Or when leftist cartoonist Ted Rall referred to Condi Rice as a “house nigga” the left was strangely quiet.
Here in Australia the intelligentsia seems far less outraged that Germaine Greer said, on national TV, that the PM has a “fat arse” than they were when Tony Abbott referred to her by her name. And the Crikey crowd didn’t go into paroxysms of outrage when someone referred to Palin’s disabled son “Trig The Mongrel”. Oh that’s right, that ‘someone’ was Crikey!
That’s what I love about the great and the good of the intelligentsia – they are so dispassionately consistent.
And now we have Obama trying to racialise the presidential election, dog-whistling for race-hustlers like the New Black Panthers who have put a price on the head of a Latino man who shot a black guy, apparently in self defense. Their posters say he is wanted ‘dead or alive’. That would be the same New Black Panthers that Eric Holder declined to prosecute for racial intimidation at the polling booth at the 2008 presidential election.
So pile on to a bunch of bogans. It will no doubt make you feel righteous. You can really go hard at this lot as they are the hated class enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury of the intellectual elite..
That’s nice. Can you please relate any of your comments back to the original post, which concerns appropriate methods for dealing with the public broadcasting of blatantly racist views.
You define the topic so narrowly, NLU. While it’s nice to watch the awesome banshee rage of the morally righteous, there are other perspectives worth noting, particularly regarding the selective outrage that is brought to bear on these particular miscreants. Personally I’d rather not join this particular bukkake lynch mob as they spurt their indignant virtue over their chosen hate-figures.
So basically, rather than talk about an apparently widespread racist reaction to a crazy popular film, rather than talk about how to deal with that reaction, and rather than criticise the reaction and reject its poisonously oppressive elements, you want to talk about a racist thing that Joe Biden once said, and whether the left is insufficiently critical of itself.
Godspeed, brave and righteous cultural warrior. May you find another thread to derail with fulminations about those damn leftists.
NLU, I only wish I had seen such passion spent on Greer’s recent poisonous comments on national TV. But then again, maybe you are right. A bunch of juveniles tweeting racist comments are far more dangerous than than media darlings spewing crap on national TV.
Perhaps these kids would behave better with better role models. Maybe they need someone to work with them, like Catherine Deveny for example, who is at least good at suggesting that 11 year-old girls need to get laid. Or maybe Larissa Behrendt could explain how offensive they are in her usual equestrian way.
So racism directed at a child actor is OK with you SB because Germaine Greer said our PM had a fat arse? Sure . . .
When the Left is ignoring comparably overt racism amongst its own then your charge of hypocricy on this particular issue might have some merit. Currently we’re not, and so it doesn’t.
And no – Obama saying “If I had a son he would look like Travis” doesn’t qualify: you’re being utterly hysterical to characterise that one sentence as an attempt to “racialise” the presidential election. You’re straying into Fox News-like propoganda with that little gem.
As far as the Left’s hypocricy on sexism and Germaine Greer goes – well – I agree with you about that one.
Mondo: “So racism directed at a child actor is OK with you SB”
You know that is not true, Mondo and you have no warrant for even asking that question. My point all along has been about selective outrage. American kids tweet racist messages – who knew? Maybe the tweeters take their cues from the fact that an American president or vice-president can get away with racist comments.
It’s as I said. You’re much more interested in “selective outrage” than a deluge of race-hate on twitter directed at a child actress. Why? Because you are so desperately scared of losing your ‘pox-on-all-your-houses’ moral superiority by becoming part of a “lynch mob” – a term that is painfully terrible as a term for describing an outpouring of strong, robust objection to the hatred of black people.
Even if you were right about all your examples, and in every one of those cases the left had been insufficiently critical of bigotry coming from its own side, that would tell us absolutely nothing about how we should handle the kind of racist poison that this post was originally about. It is actually possible to wish the left had been more critical of those examples AND to support being critical of THIS example, you know. You could even try it yourself.
That would require you to actually address the subject of the original post, though. It would require you to be more interested in race hate directed at a child actress than the conceptual coherence and integrity of “the left” (as if it were one homogenous monolith). Have a think about it and let us know what you’d like to talk about.
You know that is not true, Mondo and you have no warrant for even asking that question.
As it happens I do know that it’s not true – but I have as much basis for asking the question as you do for ignoring this racism and instead going off half-cocked about Obama and the Left.
The racism shown in the tweets is disgusting and deserves condemnation. That it is being expressed so freely by the young is abhorrent – and all of them deserve a good kick in the backside for it (which it looks like they’ve now received).
You should be applauding this result instead of trying to draw false equivalencies between complaints about a “nigger” in a movie role and Obama simply noting that his kids are black.
Nicelittleunit has your number on this one in the post immediately above.
NLU: “lynch mob” – a term that is painfully terrible as a term for describing an outpouring of strong, robust objection to the hatred of black people.”
Good. I was looking for a strong term to describe the hideous behaviour of a selectively outraged pack of Jackals. The term ‘Lynch Mob’ came from a Scots Irish American of that name who liked to string up Loyalists in the Revolutionary period.
“Have a think about it and let us know what you’d like to talk about.”
Criticism of racist tweets is going to be more effective if people think it is principled rather than opportunistic. There are plenty of truly horrible racist tweets out there every day of the week. Idiot race-baiting director Spike Lee tweeted Zimmerman’s address to his thousands of followers and provoked a flood of tweets along these lines:
A principled approach would have some sense of proportion and also distinguish among the tweets as some are much worse than others. It would also address some of the contemporaneous and much more egregious tweets floating around out there at the moment. So I would like to say that a bunch of tweets expressing surprise that a character was played by a black actor, especially when the original character was in fact black, is at best ignorant and could be taken to be racist. Those which are more overtly racist and expressed in ugly racist language are contemptible, loathsome and very disappointing to read. I really wish these people were more tolerant, sensitive and understanding. But I would save my real venom for prominent race-baiters like Spike Lee and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panthers who provoke murderous responses and also their “stupid, ignorant, racist” followers. I would like to “kick over the rocks under which these scumbags live” and send them a big “Fuck You!”.
Well, you go ahead and save your real venom. The rest of us will just condemn this stuff as and when it arises, without worrying about some sort of “conservation of venom” principle, and without derailing the conversation with a big fat “but The Great Church Of The Left didn’t complain loudly enough about this other dude, so I demand that we talk about that instead.” If you demand that we wait until the left has its house perfectly in order before we complain about anything, we’ll never raise our voice at all.
Also, a big fat LOL at your comparison between an expression of disgust for black people and an actual real life death threat. I eagerly await your next post, which will no doubt compare the Hunger Games tweets to female genital mutilation or perhaps the holocaust.
NLU: “The rest of us will just condemn this stuff as and when it arises”
It is arising right now. Go for it.
As I said, it is a question of proportionality. Kids tweeting racist rubbish versus race-baiting by prominent figures and organised racist groups giving rise to racist death threats. LOL as much as you like.
It is arising right now, and I’m talking about it right now. Just not on a completely irrelevant thread. You know what else is happening right now? A famine in East Africa. But I’m not going to demand that here, in a post concerning racist tweets about the Hunger Games, that we start talking about that instead. I’ll leave that to derailers like yourself.
“Funny thing is when a leftist says something offensive there isn’t the same shrill outrage that seems to be reserved for bogans, rednecks and political opponents in general”
What amuses me most, SB, is that even YOU equate these kind of racist views with conservatism/right-wing politics. Where exactly does it say in this post or anywhere else that these people aren’t “leftist”? How do you know that we aren’t all sitting around getting “outraged” about a bunch of racist leftists right now?
Short answer, you don’t. You – even you! – equate these kind of views with right-wing ideology. And that’s for a reason.
Maybe when even you, the most strident anti-leftist person I know, doesn’t automatically assume that someone spouting racist bollocks is not left wing, we can start looking at the racism in left wing politics.
NLU: “A famine in East Africa.”
OK already. You keep railing against kids tweeting insults and ignoring racist death threats and the hatemongering organisations and celebrities promoting those death threats if that’s your priority. We can only do so much, eh?
Keri: “Where exactly does it say in this post or anywhere else that these people aren’t “leftist”?”
Nowhere. I realised this about half way through my commenting on this thread. Then I tried to work out why I was making such an assumption. I won’t trouble you with my theory on this as it will only make me seem more unhinged than usual. My original point still stands though.
And so you have, SB, and I thank you for it.
I’ve only half-followed the Trayvon case.
I had the extreme misfortune to spend a day in Sandford and, I can tell you, the place is a shithole. So, when I heard of the shooting, I wasn’t really surprised.
Nor was I surprised that this tragedy was used as a political football.
The Yanks are great at that kind of shit.
Nor am surprised that Spike Lee re-tweeted (the wrong) address of Zimmerman. That man is a racist and anti-Semite of the first order and incitement to violence is just his thing.
I am surprised that nobody has been investigated for issuing those death threats.
Isn’t that kind of thing illegal in the States anymore?
As Keri pointed out, I wonder what it is that made you think that those uttering the racist comments were right-wing?
Could it be that 90% of racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and Homophobic content comes to us from Movement Conservative and Far Right sources?
Cheers
Splatterbottom, you should do some reading about the “oppression olympics”. Basically, it’s a theory that skewers the idea that we should stop talking about Example of Oppression A if someone, somewhere can point to a worse Example of Oppression B. It’s literally exactly what you’re doing, and it’s a fantastic way to contribute to the oppression of minorities by ruling ‘out of order’ many of their perfectly legitimate complaints.
SB, while I understand where you are coming from, it reminds me of when an issue arises around a woman being treated abysmally. Instead of dealing with that, we get a tirade of the ‘poor trodden on men who are ignored’ brigade (this is despite the damning statistics but of course facts have no place in these sort of discussions). Suddenly, one off examples are used to demonstrate the plight of all men despite the plight of women being clearly worse off. Any attempt to address what ACTUALLY happened to the woman is taken as sexism and mysanthrpy – or as ‘oh I suppose we can just kick the suffering men to the curve’. Nope, it is just trying to deal with the event that actually occured. It is not in anyway attempting to minimise what men experiencing sexist behaviours go through.
If you care about an issue SB, voice it. It is not up to everyone else to do that. Not voicing a view of every little example you put forth, doesn’t mean we (the ‘left’) don’t have a view or didn’t provide a view in places you don’t look. It is not necessarily inconsistency, particularly when, as you have above, are comparing apples and oranges (hell your examples aren’t even the comparing fruit and fruit).
SB: You could start here: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html#moreimportantly
Marek: “I wonder what it is that made you think that those uttering the racist comments were right-wing?”
I’ve been asking myself the same question. Maybe I’m too quick to stereotype, too invested in the culture wars or perhaps I was just a bit too quick to rush in with comments to stir things up. The latter often happens when commenting on the run.
Narcotic: “Nope, it is just trying to deal with the event that actually occurred.”
The choice of which events to deal with and where to expend one’s outrage is a political decision in itself and that choice is a proper topic for discussion.
NLU I have carefully read the linked page and now realise any opinions I may have when confronted by a Marginalised Person™ are utterly worthless. In future I will shut-up, fall to my knees and beg them to part their buttocks so I can lovingly plant my tongue on their sacred anus.
Your place or mine?
😉
Cheers
Well, sure, SB, you could do that. Alternatively, before derailing an entire thread by saying Don’t You Have More Important Things To Talk About, you could have a think about what that comment implies (i.e. the stuff listed at that link) and think about whether it’s really helpful or useful for you to say it.
None of which is to say that you can’t contribute to the discussion because you’re not part of the marginalised group. None of which is to say that the marginalised group is by default correct about the issue at hand. All I’m saying is that it’s pretty arrogant (and completely adverse to the interests of the relevant minority) for you to tell them just to shut up and get a bit of perspective, because someone is having a worse time somewhere else.
And that’s what your argument really reduces to. “Sure these tweets are bad, but here is something that is worse, and now you’re all idiots for not talking about that instead.” Well, SB, there’s a famine in East Africa, and thus, by your own logic, you should shut the hell up and talk about that instead.
Greta Christina wrote a good piece about this terrible argument of yours (along with other similarly terrible arguments) in relation to a different context: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/29/why-yes-but-is-the-wrong-response-to-misogyny/
So please, post more. Post more about how these tweets are not important in the bigger scheme of things. Tell us more about how we should all be talking about something else instead. Be that brave cultural crusader that you are, unafraid to support the lambasting of blatant racism, but simply more interested in talking about those damn leftists instead.
Anywhere anytime, Marek. Just call me on 1-800-Rimmer.
Agreed SB, but my point is that you cannot draw conclusions that people are behaving inconsistently when they respond to a particular post because they didn’t respond to an issue not relevent to the post, on some other issue.
I rarely have time to watch Q&A and I tend to not listen to much Greer has to say, so not commenting on it is merely not knowing of it not a sign of hypocrisy. When I respond to a blog post, that is what I’m responding to. I don’t need to canvas the world to see if there are more important things to be disucssing – there will always be – ergo I think your comment that:
You keep railing against kids tweeting insults and ignoring racist death threats and the hatemongering organisations and celebrities promoting those death threats if that’s your priority
is pretty bloody ridiculous. If someone is responding to this blog post, how are those other things a) relevent and b) suddenly not a priority to that person merely because they were responding to the actual proposition?
My comment added a bit of perspective to the discussion, Narcotic. Nothing wrong with that. And it highlighted the selective nature of some leftist moralising as well.
You and NLU seem to want to confine discussion so narrowly that these wider but not unrelated points can’t be noted or discussed.
But fear not for when Finkelstein’s monster is zapped into life it can have a look at this blog and make pious pronouncements about the standards applied here.
Oh good, now we’re talking about Finkelstein. What else do you have in that bag of tricks that wasn’t the point of the original post.
“Sure these tweets are bad, but here is something that is worse, and now you’re all idiots for not talking about that instead.”
To be fair to SB that’s not really what he did.
A more accurate description of his argument would be: “Sure these comments are racist, but here are some comparatively bad racist comments that you haven’t complained about which makes me think that your outrage over racism is inconsistent and probably politically motivated.”
The problem with his argument is that the “comparatively bad” racist comments clearly weren’t, and that (as Keri pointed out) he had no real grounds to assume political motivation given that the tweeters being criticised aren’t identifiably right-wing.
NLU: “What else do you have in that bag of tricks that wasn’t the point of the original post.”
So now you are the blog police as well? Good for you.
It is not unheard of around these parts for commenters to include matters incidental to and sometimes only tangentially relevant to the original post. Obviously I don’t subscribe to your strict constructionist view of commenting, preferring instead to explore the wider context of the conversations we have here.
Mondo, I’ve already conceded Keri’s point. I can’t do more than that. I still believe there may be a reluctance on the part of some to criticise those of the same political ilk, but that is a different issue.
The gist of the post was: if you exercise your freedom of speech to be an asshat, should you be called out for it?
The consensus was yes. It wasn’t selective outrage, it was merely that if person A says something stupid, person B has a right of reply/comment. That is not being selective or censoring discussion.
My comment added a bit of perspective to the discussion, Narcotic. Nothing wrong with that. Did I say there was? Far be it from me to want to limit/narrow discussion – I am often a source of tangents! I reject your claim that I was trying to limit debate.
And it highlighted the selective nature of some leftist moralising as well. Nope, it presumed selective moralising of leftists.
I wasn’t criticsing you for going on a tangent or raising other issues – my criticism was that you were making value judgements about people’s priorities because as far as you knew, they hadn’t commented about something you raised after they’d already commented on something raised by the blog owner. It is first a case of order – how can they comment on an issue not raised yet? And second, how do you know it isn’t a priority? Thus, as I explained above and have explained again – it is not about censoring discussion. Indeed, one could infer you were attempting to censor discussion about a particular event that some here wished to discuss, by derailing the discussion about other things (I don’t hold that view, but it has more merit than your direct claim that I was trying to narrow debate merely by calling you out on making value judgements about people’s priorities – you were, in that post, referring to people on this thread btw.)
I still believe there may be a reluctance on the part of some to criticise those of the same political ilk, but that is a different issue.
That’s undoubtedly true – and your example of Greer’s comments and Biden’s patronising nonsense were good illustrators of inconsistent outrage.
They just weren’t particularly applicaple to this issue.
Just like SB to cry like a child when leaders in the black community in the US express outrage at the stalking and murder of a black minor. BTW Someone who calls a black guy (Van Jones) “Watermelon man” then accuses others of race baiting (some of us have long memories,) needs a good look in the mirror.
Al Sharpton is right in this case and you aren’t.
“Now we have Obama trying to racialise the US presidential election.”
As opposed to the racist pricks who call a corporate stooge and dark skinned version of dubya a “socialist” and go on about “taking their country back”.
No racist dog whistling there is there.
(Obama’s not a socialist but if you call him one then you ARE racist.)
You know what? When white people criticise black people for their “racism” after yet another non white kid gets found guilty of “not being white in public” and shot for it then they need to shut the fuck up and deal with their own racism. BTW the US media, and western culture generally is by definition racist.
That is a perspective that needs to be added to the discussion too.
(BTW Did Germaine Greer say Julia Gillard had a fat arse? You’re fucking kidding me. Did someone miss some irony there or did Greer just shit on everything she’s sposed to stand for?)
Jules, your comments are a classic example of what happens when pure misbegotten emotion replaces logic and common sense. Not a word of it is true. Sometimes your emotional outbursts, at least broadly, accord with reality and hit the mark but sadly this misses it entirely. It is a great stinking turd, so pungent in the bowl yet so easily flushed away.
You are the one who turned a post about the tendency of the interwebs to self correct stuff it doesn’t like, a post about what happens when what people say in public is made public, into an excuse for bashing black people when yet again a kid is shot, while on the way back from the shops.
You can try and ignore what I say as “misbegotten emotion” and claim its untrue.
But you are wrong.
The anti Obama thing you, and thousands of other old white people do isn’t based on logic or common sense. its based on the fear of darkies and you need to grow up and get over it.
You claim its not true that the opposition to Obama is more about race than politics, but Rick Santorum basically called Obama a nigger in public, and Mitt Romney belongs to a religion that includes the racist doctrine that black people are further from God than whites. And both encourage the idea that they are “taking their country back”.
Al Sharpton has called for civil disobedience and economic sanctions against the entity responsible for refusing to charge a man who shot and killed a child after stalking said child against police advice.
Thats a fair call. For one thing the facts in this case may turn out to support Zimmerman, the shooter, or they may not. Refusing to take the case to trial does nothing for the public perception that justice be seen to be done, and it doesn’t allow Zimmerman the chance to be acquitted.
You, in your haste to condemn black people for being racist, associate that legitimate call with extremists who are calling for another extra judicial killing on top of the one that has already happened.
You have no business commenting on race issues tho to be fair you have an arsehole for an avatar so we shouldn’t be surprised when you consistently behave like one.
Jules: “The anti Obama thing you, and thousands of other old white people do isn’t based on logic or common sense. its based on the fear of darkies and you need to grow up and get over it.”
Please don’t call me a racist. That is no way to conduct civil discourse. If you really mean it then you are a much nastier piece of work than I ever imagined.
The idea that anyone who criticises Obama is a racist is quite common among the left. If you want to know why political discourse is so unpleasant these days, this sort of baseless sledge is a good starting point.
SB “Jules, your comments are a classic example of what happens when pure misbegotten emotion replaces logic and common sense.”
Only in SB’s world. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Criticise Obama for failing to deliver an equitable form of something resembling medicare, or for being a warmongering corporate stooge – that is fine. he’s basically a republican policy wise afaics so feel free to hassle him about his alleged leftist policies if you want, but name them first.
However calling him a “socialist” when he clearly isn’t or calling to take “our country back” when it hasn’t changed since dubya is racist. The only difference is that the person implementing all the right of centre policies has dark skin. Forcing Americans to buy insurance off corporations is not “socialism” its corporate welfare. Taxing the rich and using the money for medicare might be, but its not what Obama did.
Accusing him of racialising the US election race when he’s already been called a “nig …. ugh” by the bloke conservatives favour is just a fucking joke, and if you think you can do that and not get called on it you’ve got another thing coming. Especially when he is expressing something many Americans of different ethnicities, not just a few uppity blacks, actually feel, that this appears on the face of it to be a shooting of a black middle class kid cos he wore a hoodie.
Further to SBs inaccurate “wanted dead or alive” comment…
Having seen the poster there is currently a $10, 000 reward for a “legal citizen’s arrest” of George Zimmerman. you can see the poster on the NBP website if you take the time to look it up. No mention of the terms “Dead or Alive”.
There is also an interview with someone from the New Black panther Party regarding thee so called “bounty” here:
http://yourblackworld.net/2012/03/uncategorized/new-black-panther-malik-shabazz-speaks-with-ybws-doshon-farad-about-the-bounty/
here’s some of the more relevant bits:
YBW: What is the reason for the NBPP offering a bounty for George Zimmerman? And is it legal?
MZS: The NBPP did not put out a bounty. We put out an offer/reward and collected moneys from the churches and broader community in Florida who had been offering the same thing. And they came to us for help in raising the money to reward someone for making a legal citizen’s arrest because there’s a felon on the loose of whom we have probable cause and reasonable suspicion that he has committed a serious felony.
…. We want the authorities such as the Justice Department, the State of Florida, and the local police to do their job. But it’s very difficult for us to sit back and see our mothers and grandmothers in pain over a manifest injustice while a killer walks the streets and we stand idly by.
…
YBW: Do you confirm or deny allegations that the NBPP is advocating vigilante justice?
MZS: Well our reading of the Florida Common Law and other relevant statutes tell us that a citizen has a legal right to make a citizen’s arrest, again when there’s probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed.
…
YBW: There‘s a concern by many that your organization offering a reward for Mr. Zimmerman’s capture is in fact endangering his life.
MZS: How so?
YBW: Say for example there may be a zealot or a person who is gung-ho, in the background, hearing about a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman, who may try to physically harm him or worse while apprehending him. And people say that his blood is on your hands. How would the NBPP deal with such a scenario?
MZS: Let me ask you one question. Why are we worried about Zimmerman? We should be worried about Trayvon Martin and his family. I’m not worried about Zimmerman.
…
YBW: How is the reward money being raised?
MZS: Most of it is coming from the community in Florida, specifically from residents and citizens who say that police have been treating them unfairly for years. And they wanted to do something that would accelerate the arrest of Zimmerman. The money is also being raised by community activists. Its only $10,000. It should be more.
YBW: That brings us to our next question about the reward amount. We’ve seen news reports saying that it’s been raised and or will be raised to $1 Million. Is this true?
MZS: Not as of yet, but hopefully soon. There have been so many attacks on our reward that I don’t know how much it will rise. But I must reemphasize that the attacks and criticisms should not be on the NBPP. They should be against the police department. If they were doing their job we wouldn’t have to mention a reward. The focus should be on Zimmerman and the police department. We’re just black men and women who believe that justice has to be done.
So SB, one of us has been “nasty” on this thread, with their unfounded assumptions about a group of people using their legal rights and responsibilities, but it wasn’t me.
As an update to this conversation, last night George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with 2nd Degree Murder.
Not Involuntary Manslaughter or Manslaughter, but 2nd Degree Murder.
If it can be shown that Zimmerman had planned to confront, or had a reasonable expectation of confronting, Trayvon Martin on that night, then we’re looking at Murder.
I wonder if that means that the Neo-Nazis will stop patrolling the neighbourhoods around Sandford?
Cheers