Here’s a breath of common sense:
“Ninety percent of black murder victims are killed by black assailants.
But guess what? White people kill one another, too. Eighty-three percent of white victims are killed by white assailants.”
Maybe it’s time to talk about ‘black on black’ crime? – Contra Costa Times.
Marlene Dotterer 
i’ve remained fairly quiet on this matter because I haven’t read the grand jury documentation to form an educated opinion about the lack of prosecution of the officer involved in Michael Brown’s death. There appear to be plenty of people who’ve read the official witness statements who still come away wondering how no prosecution of any kind occurred. I’ll leave that to them.
However, when i see statements of “why aren’t we talking about black on black crime” as a response to the Michael Brown incident, I’m left shaking my head at whoever thought saying it was a good idea. I can only imagine it’s being said by someone who read about “black on black crime” statistics because it’s not coming from someone who experiences or experienced it. Why? Because it IS being discussed, talked about, worked at by neghborhood groups trying to improve the state of affairs for their kids and grandkids where crimes occur (having grown up in a neighborhood where black-on-black crimes occurred often, I know this was discussed and acted upon). And that’s whether it is black-on-black or white-on-white. The issue in the Michael Brown incident was about bringing attention to a sadly repeated situation of unarmed men losing their lives at the hands of those who were meant to serve and protect them, the sadder fact that it has happened by white officers against young black men, and saddest of all, no prosecution.
I don’t condone commiting crimes. But I would hope the punishment would fit the crime. Whether a police officer is black, white, or whatever ethnicity, I would hope they are entering every situation aware and able to protect themselves. I would also hope they enter every situation looking to resolve matters peacably, if possible, but I understand if some guy comes running at them with a knife, they have to protect themselves. Maybe that’s it, maybe the official witness statements include something about a keychain or a screwdriver or something that he brandished, threw or something so the office had to shoot him…more than once.
You are so right, Angela. I don’t understand why there is no general rule among law enforcement to use their weapons to stop an assailant without killing. I realize that’s not always going to be possible – there will always be situations where the public or the police are in immediate danger, calling for an immediate and violent response. But it’s surely not true that every bullet must always be aimed to kill. This is especially the case when race is involved, and even more so in neighborhoods with a racial imbalance between residents and police. It seems to me that the police in those neighborhoods would be trained constantly to show restraint and to always opt to use the least violent means to deal with any situation. Maybe I’m influenced by Hollywood, but it can’t be that hard to hit an arm or a leg, rather than vital areas.
That problem is bad enough, but coupled with a justice system that seems to always exonerate the police, there is almost no hope for a black boy or man when confronted by police.
I’m low-tolerance when it comes to crime, but we MUST make sure the punishment fits the crime, while also working to rehabilitate the criminal and providing them options for a better life. And no matter what, justice must be fair, or it’s not justice.
I live in a very rural area of Upper MI. Several months ago there was a white officer who shot an unarmed white man. The man was drunk and had been being chased by the officer. Yes, He committed a crime but not one that he should have died from. There are too many of the police acting as judge, jury, and executor. There was no wrong doing on the officers part according to the local DA’s office.