Follow up on Newsom case...

This one sparked some tension at the Word which was set off from a Cros post here. I wanted to post a bit from Earl Hutchinson's column at Huffpo which I think condenses many of the sentiments that Cros and I feel regarding this charged topic. Money quote:

"The seeming nonchalance of many blacks toward black on white crime doesn't mean that blacks are insensitive to the victims of crime. They are. They are far more likely than any other group in America to be the victims of violent crime, and they know first hand the pain and suffering violent crime causes. They don't color-code crime, crime is crime, no matter the color of the victim, or assailant. There is also no evidence that black criminals target whites because they are white. They target them for their money and valuables. These crimes are almost all cases garden-variety street crime.

"Police and prosecutors in trying to determine whether to prosecute an interracial murder or attack as a hate crime or not have to figure out is their racial animus in the crime. For it to be a hate crime they have to prove that a black intentionally targeted a white victim solely because of their color. That's takes hard evidence of racial taunts, threats, writings, or statements by the perpetrator to prove race was the motivating factor in the attack. In the absence of that evidence, the charge that the attack was a hate crime won't fly.

"The suggestion that the national press engages in a cover-up to quash murders committed by blacks of whites because it's afraid to offend blacks is absurd. The better explanation is that crime news is so routine that unless the accused murderer is O.J. Simpson, Phil Spector, or Robert Blake or a name celebrity there's little chance it's going to be the stuff of endless nightly nationwide newscasts."

Sadly, I'm still waiting to hear anything about the Newsom murders on the M$M. But believe when you do, it won't be about them it'll be about the racial debate. Cros is still right. They (and we) deserve better.