A: I didn’t paint her as anything. I just shared the facts. You can (and did) draw your own conclusions.
B: How many “dudes”...sitting on their own couches at home does it take before one can be labeled a terrorist, racist, racially bias, etc? It apparently only took 1 (this time) to be labeled (and convicted as) a murderer.
C: What you believe about her is irrelevant. Skinhead or not, she is a, or at least sympathizes with, racists as evidenced by her actions on-line and communications otherwise. That FACT in light of her unreasonable actions (the man was in his home eating ice cream as he watched tv) on the night in question lends credence to the proposition that she was gunning for black folks. She didn’t get convicted of man slaughter or negligent homicide. She was convicted of murder...an intentional killing.
D: For us, and other folks who are not malicious, “there is no way you would just up and shoot a black dude”, but if you are a racist cop...chances are that you would...many have already. We all (should) know the names of the victims. What about those shootings tells cops that they can’t get away with doing that? The answer is...nothing.
In my opinion, where she went wrong is in overplaying her white/police privilege. An unarmed black guy in his own home sitting on the couch eating ice cream is apparently a bridge too far. From the cases we’ve seen from across the country, she might have had a chance to walk if anything else were different about those particular set of facts.
My question to you is, given the particular set of facts in this case, why are you so committed to come to her defense? Why is this the hill you want to die on?
She had a defense lawyer and was convicted of the murder of an innocent black man in part because her actions under the circumstances were so egregious, but also in part because the prosecution established that she was a racist (or at least harbored some racial bias or animus). This was the whole point of my post to which you replied.
